Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 2012 Genentech DSMEIR and Appendices r m yrrd�J� my�IfilNuGtiJG�J�V I � '�0� � � / r rroiV�vl�q� tl�i li I t %J 1� l/ F ru gp � 1 / iii /i'///�' / ! ' ri ��%% ///���� f� • • D /NNIS August 2012 Prepared for Prepared by �q �9� � I �pi �� `��... CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT EXPANSION AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2005072165 Draft SMEIR Prepared for City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by Atkins 475 Sansome Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 941 1 1 August 2012 Draft SMEIR CFLAPTER 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Legal AtlthorltV.........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Scope of the EIR.............................................................................................................1-3 1.2.1 Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline.....................................1-4 1.3 Environmental Review Process.....................................................................................1-3 1.4 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved.......................................................1-7 13 Document Organization.................................................................................................1-7 C.1-LATTER 2 Summary.................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Purpose of the Summary................................................................................................2-1 22 Introduction ....................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Summary of Project.........................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Classification of Environmental Impacts.....................................................................2-2 2.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts...........................................................................2-3 2.6 Summary- of Impacts and Mitigation 1leasures _ rtalyzed in This SMEIR............2 3 C.1-LATTER 3 Project Description.................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Background.......................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Existing Setting................................................................................................................3-1 3.2.1 Regional Location.............................................................................................3-1 3.2.2 Project Location...............................................................................................3-1 3.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses...................................................................................3-5 3.2.4 General Plan/Zoning Designations ..............................................................3-3 3.3 Project Characteristics.....................................................................................................3-6 3.4 Project Obj ectives............................................................................................................3-6 3.4.1 City of South San Francisco Policies.............................................................3-7 3.4.2 Genentech's Project Objectives.....................................................................3-7 3.3 Intended Uses of This SMEIR......................................................................................3-8 3.6 Public Actions and Approvals Required......................................................................3-8 3.6.1 State and Local Agencies.................................................................................3-8 3.7 Cumulative Development Scenario ..............................................................................3-9 3.8 References...................................................................................................................... 3-10 C.1-LATTER 4 Environmental Analysis .........................................................................................4-1 4.0 Introduction to the Analvsis ..........................................................................................4-1 4.1 _fir Qtiality....................................................................................................................4.1-1 4.1.1 Background...................................................................................................4.1-1 4.12 Introduction..................................................................................................4.1-2 4.1.3 Environmental Setting.................................................................................4.1-2 4.1.4 Regulatory Framework................................................................................4.1-3 City of South San Francisco iii Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1111 Iiiiii; jig 4.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................4.1-11 4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................4.1-23 4.1.7 References....................................................................................................4.1-24 4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................4.2-1 4.2.1 Background....................................................................................................4.2-1 4.2.2 Introduction..................................................................................................42-1 4.2.3 Environmental Setting.................................................................................4.2-1 4.2.4 Regulatory Framework................................................................................4.2-7 4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................4.2-19 4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................4.2-26 42.7 References....................................................................................................42-26 4.3 Land Use/Planning.....................................................................................................4.3-1 4.3.1 Background....................................................................................................4.3-1 4.3.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................4.3-2 4.3.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................4.3-2 4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..............................................................4.3-5 4.3.5 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................4.3-11 4.3.6 References....................................................................................................4.3-12 4.4 Transportation/Traffic...............................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.1 Background....................................................................................................4.4-1 4.42 Introduction..................................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.3 Environmental Setting.................................................................................4.4-2 4.4.4 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................4.4-10 4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................4.4-12 4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................4.4-37 4.4.7 References....................................................................................................4.4-38 CFLAPTER 5 Other CEQA Considerations .................................................................................5-1 5.1 New Sigrtilicant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided if the Project Is Implemented ................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects.......................................................... 5-1 5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts............................................................................................. 5-1 5.4 Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Sigrtilicant Effects of the Project............................................................................................................................... 5-2 53 additional CEQ A, Consideration................................................................................. 5-2 5.5.1 Cultural Resources........................................................................................... 5-2 5.5.2 Hydrology/ Water QualitV............................................................................. 5-2 5.5.3 Alternatives....................................................................................................... 5-3 C.1-LATTER 6 Report Preparers.....................................................................................................6-1 6.1 List of Report Preparers ................................................................................................6-1 iv City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Appendices Appendix A Iiutial Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendi-X B 2007:N F'.IR lfitigation leasures _appendix C _fir Quality-Supporting Data Appendi-X D Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Data Appendix E Traffic Memorandum Figures Figure 3-1 Project Location and Regional Vicituty...................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Genentech Existing Development...........................................................................................................3-3 Figure 4.3-1 Areas of b undation for Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.......................................................4.3-7 Figure 4.4-1 SMF'.IR Stud-Intersections.....................................................................................................................4.4-5 Figure 4.4-2 Existing Conditions (2009 Without Pro)ect) Turfing Movement Volumes............................4.4-7 Figure 4.4-3 Existing Plus Project Tunilrg Movement Volumes......................................................................-1.4-15 Figure 4.4-4 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Vith Pro)ect) Turning Movement Volumes......................................................................................................................................................4.4-21 Figure 4.4-5 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Pro)ect)Turning Movement Volumes......................................................................................................................................................4.4-23 Tables Table 2-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas (st)......................................................................................2-2 Table 2-2 Summary of Erivirortmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures............2-4 Table 3-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas..............................................................................................3-7 Table 3-2 Cumulative Projects Located within the East of 101 Area.............................................................3-10 Table 4.1-1 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards,Effects,and Sources..................................4.1-4 Table 4.1-2 Bav Area 2010 Estimated Average Daily Emissions.......................................................................4.1-6 Table 4.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants...................................................................4.1-6 Table 4.1-4 B_VAQ:NID Operational Emissions Thresholds.............................................................................4.1-14 Table 4.1-5 Operational Emissions...........................................................................................................................4.1-21 Table 4.2-1 Project-Level GHG Emissions............................................................................................................4.2-24 Table 4.3-1 BCDC Climate Change Consistency rtalysis...................................................................................4.3-9 Table 4.4-1 Comparison of Genentech Development Assumptions in the 2007:N LFIR and 2011 Eastof 101 Stud-.......................................................................................................................................4.4-3 Table 4.4-2 Comparison of East of 101 Area Land Uses in the 2007:N F'.IR and 2011 East of 101 Stud-..............................................................................................................................................................4.4-3 Table 4.4-3 SMF'.IR Study Intersections.....................................................................................................................4.4-4 Table 4.4-4 Pear Hour Intersection Levels of Seri-ice Existing Conditions (2009 Without Pro)ect)..........................................................................................................................................................4.4-9 Table 4.4-5 Genentech Growth in Master Plan District.....................................................................................4.4-13 Table 4.4-6 Project Trip Generation (Net Increase Ili Vehicle Trips) Genentech Master Plan District.........................................................................................................................................................4.4-1-1 Table 4.4-7 Pear Hour Intersection Levels of Service Existing Plus Project without East of 101 PlannedImprovements..........................................................................................................................-l.-1-17 Table 4.4-8 Updated 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Vith Pro)ect) and East of 101 PlannedImprovements'''........................................................................................................................-l.-1-18 City of South San Francisco v Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1111 Iiiiii; jig Table 4.4-9 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-2033 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Vihout Pro)ect).....................................................................................................................................4.4-25 Table-1.4-10 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Vith and Without Pro)ect) (Includes East of 101 Plasirted Improvements)........................4.4-26 Table 4.4-11 2035 Conditions Frecwav:NIairtline Analvsis...................................................................................4.4-38 Table6-1 List of EIR Preparers..................................................................................................................................6-1 A City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR This supplement to a master eliviro time ntal impact report (SMEIR) addresses potential environmental impacts that could occur due to any- substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that have occurred, or due to new information that has arisen since certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and 1laster Plan Update project (project) for the City of South San Francisco (the City-) in 2007. The City- is the lead agency- for this project. The background for the project and the legal basis for preparing an SMEIR are described below. 1 .1 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY The City- of South San Francisco is processing an application from Genentech to update the company's 2007 Master EIR (2007 MEIR) prepared for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update. The 2007 HEIR considered the environmental impacts of development on Genentech's 160-acre campus area within a broader 220-acre stud- area. The 2007 HEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2005072165,was certified by the City- of South San Francisco on March 14, 2007. _after certification of the 2007 HEIR, the Cite- Council subsequently- adopted the updated Genentech Ten Year Facilities Master Plan (2007 Master Plan) that was analyzed in the 2007 HEIR, and amended the Citv's Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (R&D). Since certification of the 2007 HEIR and adoption of the 2007 Master Plan, the City- has approved a number of projects which it determined were within the scope of the 2007 MEIR pursuant to CEQA, Guidelines Section 15177. (.E(_)-A, Guidelines Section 15179 provides: (a) The certified Master EIR shall not be used for a subsequent project described in the Master EIR in accordance with this article if either: (1) The Master EIR was certified more than 5 rears prior to the filing of an application for a subsequent project except as set forth in subsection (b) below, or ... (b) A Master EIR that was certified more than fire rears prior to the filing of an application for a subsequent project described in the Master EIR may be used in accordance with this article to review such a subsequent project if the lead agency- reviews the adequacy- of the Master EIR and takes either of the following steps: (1) Finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Master EIR was certified, or that there is no new available information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Master EIR was certified; or (2) Prepares an initial stud-, and, pursuant to the findings of the initial stud-, does either (A) or (B) below: (A) Certifies a subsequent or supplemental EIR that updates or revises the Master EIR and which either: 1. Is incorporated into the previously certified Master EIR, or City of South San Francisco 1-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e 2. References any deletions, additions or other modifications to the previously certified Master EIR. Because of the fire rear limitations set forth in CEQ-A, Guidelines Section 15179, the City-has determined to review the adequacy of the 2007 HEIR and conduct additional environmental review in order to supplement the 2007 MEIR so that it may continue to rely upon that document (as supplemented) in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. Under CEQA, the scope of environmental analysis required depends on whether substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the 2007 MEIR was certified have occurred and/or whether any- new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 HEIR becomes available. In addition, CEQ-A, Guidelines Section 15179 incorporates the standards for supplemental environmental review under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15162. Supplemental review is appropriate if (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project or in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions of an EIR, or new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time an EIR was certified becomes available, arid, (2) such changes or new information will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As discussed above, the 2007 Master Plan was full- analyzed in the 2007 HEIR. Althotigh the scope of the 2007 Master Plan has not changed since its adoption, the City- wishes to continue to rely upon the 2007 HEIR in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. This SMEIR therefore analyzes substantial changes in circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan is being undertaken that have occurred, and new information of substantial importance that has arisen, since certification of the 2007 MEIR which were determined to potentially result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts previously found significant in the 2007 HEIR. This SMEIR thus focuses largely on regulatory changes that have occurred since certification of the 2007 HEIR in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use/planning, and new information and changed circumstances since certification of the 2007 HEIR in the area of traffic/transportation as explained more fully below. All other environmental topics were adequately analyzed in the 2007 MEIR and require no further analysis, as determined in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/N()P) attached hereto as _appendix A. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15163(b), this SMEIR contains only the information necessary to make the previous 2007 MEIR adequate for the City's reliance in reviewing subsequent projects that are within the scope of,and for implementation of, the 2007 Master Plan. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required only when, among other criteria, "substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15163 allows the lead agency to choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if "only- minor additions or changes would be necessary- to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation." 1-2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e There are no changes to the previously adopted 2007 Master Plan. _accordingly, only- minor additions to the 2007 HEIR are necessary to adequately- address changes in the circumstances of the project's implementation and new information that has arisen since certification of the 2007 HEIR. Because of the modest nature of these updates,a supplement to the 2007 MEIR has been prepared. The purpose of this report is to serve as an informational document for the public and City decision- makers. The process will culminate with Planning Commission and City- Council hearings to consider certification of a Final SMEIR. 1 .2 SCOPE OF THE EIR The SMEIR assesses and evaluates potentially- new or substantially- more significant environmental impacts that were not previously examined in the 2007 HEIR due to substantial changes in circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the 2007 HEIR was certified. These impacts were identified through a scoping process that included (1) preparation of the IS/NOP distributed for public review for 30 days beginning on December 21, 2011, and ending January- 20, 2012; (2) comments received by the City- in response to the IS/N()P; and (3) scoping discussions among consulting staff and the City-. The IS/N()P and comment letters received during the 30 dap public review period are included in appendix A. During the scoping period, the CltV received two written comment letters on the IS/NOP: one from the Native American Heritage Commission regarding cultural resources, and one from the San Mateo Count-Transit District rep arding potential impacts on area public transit. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRNVQCB) provided verbal comments via phone communication with the City during the NOP comment period. This comment was regarding the change in the SFRNVQCB permits. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) also submitted a comment letter after the close of the IS/NOP comment period requesting a copy of the SMEIR. The IS/NOP determined the scope of arty additional review required under (.E(_)-A, Guidelines Section 13179, and it concluded that changes in circumstances and/or new information had arisen in four impact areas that warranted further analysis in this SMEIR: • _fir Quality-' • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Land Use/Planning • Transportation/Traffic i In january 2012,the Superior Court for the Court of Kameda County issued a minute order granting ape6tion for writ of mandate and determined that BAAQID failed to comply with CEQ A in adopting its revised CEQ),Guidelines, and decided that the 2011 BA-AQXID CEQ A Guidelines are invalid on procedural grounds (California Buih-lingllzdastr3,1: BayArw Air Ouality llgmtRG10-X48693). Under CEQ A Guidelines Section 15)064.7(c), `when adopting thresholds of significance,a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts,prodded the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. This S:XIEIR conservatively assumes that B_AAQID's 2011 CEQ A Guidelines were developed with the support of substantial evidence, represent more accurate thresholds of significance and provide a more accurate methodology for purposes of analyzing potential air quality impacts than the earlier(1999)version of the BAAQID CEQ A Guidelines. Under CEQ A,it is ultimately up to the Lead Agency to determine which thresholds of significance and methodology to apply.Because the City has determined that the remised thresholds and methodologies prescribed by BAAQID's revised 2011 CEQ A Guidelines are amply supported by evidence in the record,the City has determined to adopt them for purposes of the analysis in this S:XIEIR. City of South San Francisco 1-3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e This SMEIR addresses each of these environmental issues in Chapter 4 (Environmental _ rtalysis) of this document. The environmental analysis was conducted in accordance with the provisions set forth in CE()_A, Section 21166, and CEQ_A, Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15179. The anal-sis identities potentially- significant environmental impacts, including both the site-specific and cumulative effects of the project; evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the project; and recommends feasible mitigation measures, where appropriate, that would serge to reduce or eliminate the project's identified adverse environmental effects. All project-related mitigation measures previously analyzed in the 2007 HEIR and adopted by the City- in its mitigation and monitoring plan are being carried forward and are listed in _�ppendi B (2007 HEIR litigation Measures) for ease of reference. In accordance with CEQ_A, Guidelines Sections 15128 and 15162, the IS/N()P (_appendix A) explains why each of the following environmental issue areas did not meet the criteria for supplemental elivironmental review,and are not, therefore,analyzed further in the SMEIR: • Aesthetics • Agriculture/Forestry Resources • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology/Soils • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Hvdrology/N\'ater Quality- • Noise • Mineral Resources • Population/Housing • Public Services • Utilities/Service Svstems For each of these impact areas, it was determined that there is no new information of substantial importance and no changes in circumstances that warrant revisions to the 2007 HEIR, that the anal-sis in the 2007 HEIR was adequate, and therefore no further anal ysis was required. In preparing the SMEIR, the City reviewed and evaluated pertinent City policies and guidelines, the 2007 MEIR, and other background documents. A list of references is provided at the end of each section in Chapter 4.' 1 .2.1 Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline _according to CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15125, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project to protiride the "baseline condition" against which project-related impacts are compared. Normally-, the baseline condition is the physical '-Because no changes to the 2007 Facilities Master Plan evaluated in the 2007:XLEIR are being proposed,this S:XIEIR does not include discussion of additional alternatives to the project.As required b CEQ the 2007�IEIR included a detuled analysis of two alternatives to the project:a No Action Alternative,and a Reduced Development Alternative. This analysis remains applicable. 1-4 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e condition that exists when the NOP is published. The NOP for the project was published on December 21, 2011. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that the date for establishing an environmental baseline cannot be rigid. Because physical environmental conditions may vary over a range of time periods, the use of environmental baselines that differ from the date of the NOP is reasonable and appropriate when doing so results in a more accurate or conservative (e.g., higher impacts) environmental analysis. The baseline year of 2011 is used for all impact areas analyzed in this SMEIR to evahiate the potential impacts of the project in light of changes in policies and other circumstances. 1 .3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS This SMEIR has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQ A of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), California (.E(_)-A, Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the riles, regulations and procedures for the implementation of CEQ_A, as adopted by the City- of South San Francisco. _accordingly, as discussed above, the City- of South San Francisco has been identified as the Lead _agency for this project, taking responsibility for conducting the enti-ironmental review and approti-ing or denying future projects. As a first step in complying with the procedural requirements of (.E(_)-A,, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine which, if any, aspects of the project, either individually- or cumulatively, may- cause a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, the City- could narrow the focus (or scope) of the subsequent environmental analysis. For this project, the IS process found that this SMEIR should focus on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and transportation and traffic impacts. _after completing the IS, the City- filed a NOP with the California Office of Planning and Research, pro�-iding official notice that an SMEIR would be prepared for this project. Subsequently, the NOP was distributed to involved public agencies and interested parties for a public review period of 30 days. The purpose of the public review period was to solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the SMEIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the public review period of the NOP will have an opportunity to comment on the project's environmental effects during the public review period required for the SMEIR, as well as at subsequent Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the project. In addition to filing the NOP, the City held a public scoping meeting on January 9, 2012, to encourage and solicit comments from the general public on the project. The IS/NOP, as well as the scoping comment letters, are included in appendix A of this SMEIR. During preparation of the SMEIR, agencies, organizations, and persons who the City- believed might have an interest in this project were identified and specifically contacted. Information, data, and observations derived from these contacts are included in the SMEIR. Moving forward, this SMEIR will be distributed to affected agencies, involved public agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15087. During the 45-day public review period, this SMEIR is available for general public review on the City's website (htti-)://«-\N-\N-.ssf.ilet/iildes.asi2s?NID=3F;7) and at the following locations: City of South San Francisco 1-5 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e City- of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Hain Library- Planning Division 840 West Orange Avenue 315 lfaple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Interested parties may provide comments on the SMEIR in written form. Comments should be addressed to the City-of South San Francisco to the following address: City- of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 lfaple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner Your comments may-also be sent by FAX to 650-829-6639 or by email to s7eri�.1 eaudin(u),ssfnet (include the project name, "Genentech Corporate Facilities Research &Development Overlay District Expansion and lfaster Plan Update" in the subject heading). Upon completion of the 45 dap public review period, written responses to all comments raised with respect to environmental issues discussed in the SMEIR will be prepared and incorporated into the Final SMEIR. Furthermore, written responses to comments received from any public agencies will be made available to these agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing during which the certification of the Final SMEIR will be considered. These comments, and their responses, will be included in the Final SMEIR for consideration by the City- of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City- Council, as well as any other public decision-makers. _according to CEQ_A, Section 21081, the Lead _agency must make specific Findings of Fact (Findings) before certification of the Final SMEIR, when the SMEIR identifies significant environmental impacts that may result from a project. The purpose of the Findings is to establish the link between the contents of the Final SMEIR and the action of the Lead _agency with regard to approval or rejection of the project. Prior to approval of a project, one of three findings must be made: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially-lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SMEIR. • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Stich changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. • Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SMEIR. Additionallp, according to CEQ_A, Section 21081.6, for projects in which significant impacts will be avoided by mitigation measures, the Lead _agency must include a mitigation monitoring program (NBIP) as part of the Final SMEIR. The purpose of the :NIi1IP is to ensure compliance with required mitigation during implementation of the project. However, environmental impacts may- not always be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. N\Ilen this occurs, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If a public agency approves a project that has 1-6 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency shall state I writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final SMEIR and any other information in the public record. This is termed a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" and is used to explain the specific reasons why the benefits of a project make its unavoidable environmental effects acceptable. The statement is prepared, if required, after the Final SMEIR has been completed, and before action to approve the project has been taken. Ultimately, the lead agency must certify the Final SMEIR prior to approving a specific project In the case at hand, the City-of South San Francisco (as the lead agency),would need to certifv the Final SMEIR and adopt Findings prior to approving future projects under the 2007 Master Plan. 1 .4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED During the environmental review process, NOP comment letters were received from various parties which raised issues of concern. Comments received included: one comment letter from the Native American Heritage Commission (N AHC), one comment letter from the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), one comment letter from the California Water Service Company, and phone communication with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRNVQCB). These comment letters and verbal comments are included in appendix A, and were used to determine areas of potential controversy and issues to be resolved. These issues are discussed within the teclinical sections of this document,and summarized below. • Consideration of traffic impacts to local transit service • Consideration of impacts to cultural resources • Consideration of water supply • Consideration of compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 1 .5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This SMEIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To lielp the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of eacli section of the SMEIR is provided. References are contained at the end of eacli respective chapter, and at the end of eacli section in Chapter 4. The following chapters are contained within the SMEIR: • Chapter 1: Introduction—This chapter describes the purpose, approach, intended use, and scope of the SMEIR, a summary of the environmental and public review process, agencies relevant to the project, the availability of the SMEIR, documents incorporated by reference, and a brief outline of this document's organization. • Chapter 2: Summary— This chapter contains a summary of the project, as well as a summary of new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts, proposed mitigation, level of significance after mitigation, and unavoidable impacts. • Chapter 3: Project Description—This chapter provides a description of the conditions that have changed since certification of the 2007 HEIR; there are no changes to the 2007 Master Plan or to the project described in the 2007 MEIR. • Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis—This chapter describes and evaluates the changes to environmental issue areas, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental impacts (both short-term and long-term), policy considerations related to the particular environmental issue area under analysis, feasible mitigation measures capable of reducing environmental impacts, and City of South San Francisco 1-7 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e a discussion of cumulative impacts as tliev related to new information or changes in circumstance occurring since certification of the 2007 AIEIR. ■ Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations—This chapter provides analysis, as required by CEQ_A,, regarding changes to impacts that would result from the project, including significant and unavoidable impacts, mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant impacts of the project, and effects found not to be significant since certification of the 2007 HEIR. ■ Chapter 6: Report Preparers—This chapter identifies all individuals responsible for the preparation of this SMEIR. 1-8 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE SUMMARY This section summarizes the characteristics of the project, the ertrironmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts of the project. 2.2 INTRODUCTION This Supplemental Master Ertrironmental Impact Report (S:NIEIR) is intended to provide decision- makers and the public with information that enables them to intelligently consider the ertrironmental consequences of the proposed action (i.e. continued implementation of the 2007 Master Plan). This SMEIR identities significant or potentially- significant environmental effects, as well as Nvays in which those impacts can be reduced throtigh the imposition of mitigation measures (1I1Is), or through the implementation of alternatives to the project. 2.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT The project stud- area is bounded by the San Francisco Bay- in the north and east and is connected by Ouster Point /Forbes Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of Genentech's existing South San Francisco Central Campus (the Campus). The Campus is built on and around the San Bruno Hill—which is the highest point in the East of 101 _area. The Campus is risible from downtown South San Francisco, and has mart-views overlooking the Bay and landmarks in the Bay-_area. In 1995, the City- of South San Francisco adopted the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1995 Master Plan) to provide an integrated framework for development of Genentech-owned properties into a corporate campus, at the City's eastern bayshore. The 1995 Master Plan was designed and formulated to ensure consistency with the existing South San Francisco General Plan development policies. The 1995 Master Plan ensured that Genentech's growth fits within a City--wide development context and was adopted in the South San Francisco General Plan to minimize future impacts and conflicts or policy inconsistencies. The Genentech Research and Development (R&D) Overlay District, as Chapter 20.260 in the South San Francisco lhinicipal Code (SSFMC.), was established at the same time (this district is now known as the Genentech Master Plan District). The Genentech R&D Overlay District specifies Floor Area Ratio (FAR), parking and other standards, and review and approval procedures for development within the R&D Overlay District. In 2007, the City- Council adopted the updated Genentech Ten Year Facilities Master Plan, supported by the 2007 HEIR and amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The 2007 HEIR evaluated a stud-area of approximately 220 acres, of which 160 acres currently- comprise the Genentech Master Plan District which is divided into the Lower, Upper, Mid, and West Campus neighborhoods. At build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech expected to almost double its City of South San Francisco 2-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e 2006 size (from 2.8 million square feet [sf] to roughly 6 million sf) of office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking stn>ctures. Table 2-1 (Existing and Proposed Master Plan areas [st]) shows the existing development and the remaining proposed development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District. This SMEIR evaluates the remaining development capacity within the Genentecli Master Plan District, which is approximately 2,708,100 sf as shown in Table 2-1.' No changes have been proposed to the adopted 2007 Master Plan. Table 2-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas (sf) 2007 Genentech 2011 Existing 2007 Approved Capacity Remaining Development Capacity R&D Overlay Genentech Master under Master Plan/Genentech under 2007 Approved Master Plan/ District Plan District Master Plan District Genentech Master Plan District Land Area(acres) 125 162 200 38 Office 1,009,00 1,091,430 2,632,000 1,540,570 Laboratory 1,007,000 1,010,300 2,000,000 989,700 Manufacturing 724,000 1,046,900 1,046,000 -900 Amenity 75,000 143,270 322,000 178,730 Total Building Area 2,815,000 3,291,900 6,000,000 2,708,100 SOURCE: Genentech (2011). No changes have been proposed to the 2007 Facilities Master Plan. The SMEIR focuses exclusively on changes to the relevant policies and standards, changes in circumstances that have occurred, and/or new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the 2007 HEIR certification. 2.4 CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Under CEQA, a "significant impact" represents a substantial or potentially- substantial adverse pliysical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects, this SMEIR identifies thresholds of significance for eacli effect, evaluates the potential environmental change associated with eacli effect, and then characterizes the effects as impacts in the following categories: • Less Than Significant Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions • Potentially Significant Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels 1)y implementation of proposed potentially feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative GIven that the 2007 Master Plan does not mandate the timing or sequence of construction of specific structures, where the analysis of specific impacts requires an estimate of building schedule as a model input, reasonable working assumptions have been made. For purposes of analysis in this S:XIEIR,complete build-out is assumed by 201 for all sections except transportation. For transportation,the analysis assumes seventy percent build-out by 201 ,and complete build-out by 203 ,based on the East of 101 Traffic Study which represents significant new information or changed circumstances warranting an update to the 2007:XIEIR analysis. These assumptions produce a"worst case scenario" for all potential environmental effects. 2-2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR e ■ Significant and Unavoidable Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. 2.5 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The following significant, unavoidable impacts would result from future development of the project as a result of either new information arising since certification of the 2007 MEIR or changes in circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented. A detailed discussion of these impacts can be found in Section 4.1 (_fir Quality-) and Section 4.4 (Transportation/Traffic) of this document. • Air Quality • Project Specific Operation of the project would exceed an air quality threshold and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, resulting in a .i7,aificr at alid unar oidable impact. • Project Specific and Cumulative Operation of the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors), resulting in a q.glaifrc lit alid ururr oidable impact. • Transportation/Traffic • Project Specific and cumulative Implementation of the project would conflict with a recently established applicable plan, ordinance, or policy- establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gatewav Boulevard, resulting in a sz*gliificrrrt alid Illiar oidable impact • Project Specific and cumulative Implementation of the project would conflict with a recently established 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 highway-s, resulting in a S.911ifrcdllt alid ururr oidable impact. 2.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ANALYZED IN THIS SMEIR Pursuant to CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1), Table 2-2 (Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures) contains a summary of less-than-significant, potentially- significant, or significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the project, mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid those effects, and the level of significance of the impacts following the implementation of mitigation measures. City of South San Francisco 2-3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR c O a� 4) 0 N L a G) U C/) CIO > H C c � CIO Q O > ri)c o > 0( o C a) O CL o :: _0 O O >LO CL CIO°a) a)0 C) _0 z O O N O a) C O U U -O Cc DL O C O U ° 0 O (6 a) ° O O C E cc Co O 0) �-" 00 U cc Q N >+0 ) O N a3 OL a) i .--� � fA ° Q C Q a) a3 CO — O --" ° 0 N O (06 C � -O a) O 'tA a3 C a3 O a) Q cc 0 G) — Q 'O (tn -C O C n i O N C N - o O O 3 '-aO>O C o 3 O O U a3 > O p O a) a3 O O p O U a3 a3 a3 U Q C . o 0 O o C a3 ca x ° ° o ° o °) ° -0a3 i6 o m Q U h>O C o E O O a3 o in t a)) � > > - E a Y � � a�Oi .O c � > c E > • u o cOi �° .� `6 °- C O o 0 L 0 0 0 o Q O N z O C E `p CU O � O O > � z Q o c a) U6 O �) > i6 o cc o aOi -2 cc a) CCa 0 �'� � E N o U C aS -p -O v c aa) aa)) cc v -0 -0 COa Q CCa -a g - .X aOi a3 E ° Q a) O L a) O a) O p a) 'O a) a) -° ° ° � °) a) 0 c a3 O E 0 a) —.� -0 a) a) : > O — C ca E > a3 • 0 a) > 'o .E � E c-, Q a`) cc Uj 6) o .� - cEa ° E o > _ O U O a E O a3 C 0) O a) a) ° � a) � O .� O — .� U a1 — C — 'O N O Q C i a) aS .0 a) O 0 O C •• v- O a) a3 O �-J (A O O .� a) Co C a) U �' a) : _ 'O L a) a3 N 'O 'O C 73 O o C 0 O .0 CL O i C a) O • H M a) 0 O .� a) C �-' a) a) O � .� (Y6 a3 O (A � C O '� Q a�i g C ° o aa) Q 6 � � � a`) 0- ca a— � (>6 � (>6 o c 7) v cOi c °_ � Cr (n o aOCi o o aa) Q m ., 'ca 0 U 0 a°)i a°)i 0 aa) E O � Cf) C O — C- a3 -p -O 6 ca > = a) -O o x c � � a) d N o a3 O CU � a3 ca 0) Q � a) a) � a) � � E � a=) o a) is � 0 Q o w D aOi a`) .� o aS Y a°)i > ° o ,c�6 ,c�6 .� ,c�6 z a) w .C) i6 N '0) � >o a) a3 (>6 (`a ° c c(a E O aa)) O a O 0 > o a�i 0 c o 7 • r` C'1 a) O U d rn d w O a) co o r` O O CD aOi — — — o O O � U Z N m f 5 E ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ N a3 0 cc C G � C u 0 rn 1 k G J d � O • G a • .0 a) ° �' w a) U — C L N ° N:E 03 > ' O :3 a3 O Q -5 U) .0 cE U 535 C', o v - a -O a U a) a) I) °�C F C U O °N O 5 O .0 C ( U 0 Q 0) a3 i- N ° o U C :3 2) p .� U) -O U a) -0 O Q.0 (6 O O � N a3 � �.a) , O 'O 92 C Q C -O — a) � as 3 a) O '0; — o O ° E -J d > U) a) 76 (6 V C °— 0- aa)) c o (O6 cca ca aci �� -a-m a3 .6 E -0 p O C 5 a) E °- ® C ' p M g o -0 a) U. aOi .E EE o E L z—° ° v � 0 O a) in z oO a) o Oa) .E o il: ca E O L O N o O E !E Li o N U U L off C O O ® (C6 o (C6 O U) (6 N -Q v z o 0) 0 0 C) M :� H a Ua — Ua o !Z�5 .0 Urn v E o vi o 0 a E -0 6) aa)) :F; in cc il: 0 N c T m o r O `) a O -O cA a) C — cA cA c°q a) 0 (O .o a) o N N 76 5 U C) O U C N O O C -° O a3 i aS aS US o cc o m ca o c6 N .� c°a " ai .Lm � a) a) c°a E a c �Cf) cn L a) c a) C) .D o v°i c`a c co ? a3 • a) � O 0 O � a) a3 '> c6 U O c6 O E Cf)° o o :3 > c6 . 'E ° o Co'o O a3 � a3 • 2 'N Q cc 0) -0 Co > :3 w _ c � � o cc Co O E o c -o o °� a) 0) °� a°i c°n 0 `o a)76 u 0_-o o c c°a o ff o Q OT w o S " 2 ca .o o cc N O U a) N •O a) N a) (a C7 (B Q a) U ca N O U Q Q O U cf)a` aa) aa)) E c 0) aa)) o ° o a) ° a) U c — E s ° -0 E c c°a a�i O c E o a3 ° a3 ° o 0):-- 0- 0- = ° cc � U is .� °o a`� E E cr ai o o c ° a ca c c E 0-= O o a°i ° o v c — o °o can `) .c � 'ca a�i a) ° ° a3 r. �) o v c°a a3 ° ° �) >, cc o a`� c E ° a) is aa)) 'u)i aa)) in cc o a3 aam) a3 3 a`) a°) C13 o E a o � 0 � 2:1.L 0 76 a3 a3 o a3 a) a) a) � ca .� cn ° O Q— u) O Q > C N a) 2 Lo V i O '� a) C O -a Fu EL �a cca 'Q '� °?-u o � >, ai E .o o E .c V) CO .� ° 5 O •• ai in o o m aa)) cL cn ° a a°) o -o ai 5�a cc v � _ _ �� a -o E ° E O °c Y a o v °cf)a) c o ° o a a) � � � v fl > > ° � � E ca ° c .� in a�i �cl, N E ° O • cc CJ Q � Q Q 8- D- Q Q ° E Q E aEi d ca —a°) a) Q mod . ° � m ° a) ■ O c c O O • _ U O N U X �E � > w � . U • h O aN O N 0 c N E Q O N N u � u O � • O • � c� U 0 c N O N � N � U O N c O N N U C� c o a, o N w a � rn CIO p N c � (10 Q U Cv6 o a- N O N a3 i N x W N O C (A > U N C � EP a) 0 G O N E ° Q U aS ca i C O CL i 'O a3 — U • E a) o o a) E c c ai 0 E a) o Q .6 0)-o a) �_ a3 `o a) is o o m a) ° a) o O a) — c c, a) O O c C a) -0 E � a) 0 `o > o Q c0a o Q a3 0 -° a) O • 'a) U) 7 V) '> to U) a) .� a) CV O >+'— a) O C U a) CL E cc a) .X 'O � .� Q N a) -0-0' 0) U a) O O aS N • v 0 a3 aa)i a .� O o E -0 c ca is c c a0i o Q • c�a ai c 0 a) o Q m 0 a3 °) a) E x v > a) v'i .ia 0)-6 U) -co is ate) � °_ c>a o � a�0i ° � � � 0 U a) is cc 0) o ca 'E E a) o c o a0) '� o a Ui L°— Q p o o ? R ci a) a) > > �' L a0) � o - ° L -0 U 2 > a) o c -0 a o 6) Co CL in o m -E c o a) a) > a) = is > 0 a) — — ' a) c vi -0 > C6 U) L C 0 U) q OU C N O U c) a) U) O E a) a c 0 0 U) a3 Ui 0 a3 0 ° a) in = N c c°) ca 6 � o a) is a) .� '� ° E '° ° ° Un 'cm > a a) ; U) o 0 0 L O 0 vS 1 a) 0 • `% ° -0 c ° a) E ca � a) o a) 'vo—i ° a0i a) a) o ° c °) a) x o vi E a) E o a>) .o .a) > Q -0 CD — E a) o ° a) 0 � � D 72 a) c Uri EP -C5 = ° aa)) uw)) ° aa) 0 a) Lia � � X 0) 5 -o v 2 -° ca)) E 00 ° ca -0 .— U a) c0a a3 0) E c a) o 0 Q `O U o a) a) o O o =o ° a) U c o in c U is -0 O U Un 0-.— E5 0 0 O a) 0 • p o c L °? c0a a) a0i '� C) o Co a0) 0-a) j �a2i ° v°i U � a0i � > > a3 0 c �_ vi L a3 O in o ca a o '° E o a0i v a)i C7 ~ a) c o 0 0 0 a) E Un ° > a) aU'i 0 0 > O o ° •• c°i 0 o ° o ° 0- o > ° a0i 0 c) Q 0 0 c c c0a cc Q °� ° c a3 0 0- o 0 �_ '� -o a) cn o o c a) a3 — 0 o • 0 ai 0 0 o a) o a) is ^ > v -- O = 0 O � c a) a3 o a3 a) � E 0 0 ° E 0 = a`� 0 ° v°)i U3 U a) U 0 O a) U) a) a) C a3 N U 0 O Cl) >i- C ° a) -O U 3 — — U U) cc a0i > axi m -0 > -0 0 0 a) > .� a) a�i c E vi ai O �. o)- M U) a) a) D E a) C) o a3 ni 'o g a o �' c > L N 0 x ° in 'in : v L c0a 0- o o .v 0- :3 c ccc o '� Q '� _ N • E Q U) _ > -0 aa)) � cc 2 Q cn ° c°n Q aEi c>a Q m "v0i U ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ c c N ,O c • O c O) a i U e O N m / \ u \k / ::D / / 2 � 3 ■ ) 2 % $ 0 f / § ■ a ¥ \ / a 2 f c % ae V 5 _7 G G . . . k ® - ) Lu 7 7 = g 0 e V) e = \ \ 2 0 / 2 2 _ - \ \ g / .0 \ 3 & # / \ \ E E\ \ 2 0 0 0 & o o = z z z g z z = m '/ ] 0 @ _0 _ 7/ § E E / / % J muo �/\ \ n E 0 & � a) \ / $ ° @ 0 \ \ ° & § § ƒ ƒ k § » \ > § z ® 2 + _ \ % a) 0 cc 0 2 =2 $ poE ® mtE _ - § = § y = # 960 amI # S = � - gS - ' = S 2E = 2 3 $ &\ ƒ / $ \ ) \ & ) � ƒ\ k \ .\ k [ -0 / * * \J ° [ 7 a o . G ./ 0 + f ® ._ - - - 0 e 2 % - § * = 7 z .@ 2 g - 5 m _ _ - - S 2 \ ¥ \ m >"> ° ® m = $ _ - 0 ) a2eE\ w@ ® & @ � = 4 r\ 6 r\ E / £ r$ & G � \ c g = E o § ° e _ ® ® _ 5 _ ~ > 2G » � eQR \ � / ƒ s Q - 27 ® 7e £ E 7 / E2 \ c = 5 = .- � cc U) _ « o U) -5 \ \ 72E33 � - _ - ® § m ® § q &� 7 0 � _ C) a) 3 ° 0 - � 5a = 5 & ® & S ® 2 � &� a / 0 7 a g m % .e ¥ _ = w = o a s R y m = E g � 2 = > _ E � : ee2 q - / w = = erg / 2 « 2 a) 2 = @ J a p e § o \ &/ G a , 0 ƒ / 3 7 q .ƒ E = 4 7 ° o _ = o o - > = e 2 = @ ® o ® ° e ® = f \ E § .q55 > - ® = EER E _ - � = .@ Ems= _ \ 7 £ 902 = - _ - ° _ - \ G @ 2 ./ _ _ = o E @ 0 § f / [ .§ ® / \ =t 7 2 \ [ = % \ � 9 = = 0- = £ £ 2m 29 ) 2 � 0co) ca 2 = % -0 7 $ \ \.$5Sa & \ yQ0 © ƒ � c = f :3 o)2 � _ ® e :3 »_ \ Rw + E � 2 = : \ @ - ® / & mcc-2 � M _ \ \ _ _ * = ate= = Eye § / ¥ _ _ # = = ¥ *® z2 \ of t2 = f \ � t / / / r / ± \ tmE t0 / / k $ e-) 03 ^3 &£ 7k.� i &s2p7gU && 2 &E > g - 3 &= 2R23 £ 0 $ 0-\ 7 £ 2 m- § $ &/ 6 £ ) 8 £ % E 0-/ 0 £ $ k$ m / jf U • / / / \ c ■ / \ \ \ c )^ t f - / \ 0 g > E £ p 2 27 § � � \ \ k - 2 0 k / ® 3 7 CU \ ® 7 \ & \ \ 7 \ E ) § \ / y 2 ® 0 G 3 S k \ > > � O\E e > E \ \ � /\ / \_ = e 3* = G r 0 > k o \\ / \ \ / Z = »/ f \ CU. / 7 .= 7 7 = -j k CL ƒ Go = LU / @ 2 ® &_ ° k \ ° \ / / 013 (D 04 + z ƒ R \ \ \ / /\ \ / k c ) u0 ° . 777 C 7/ § % E E moo �A0 . � &� ° 0 2 > \ E / § 0 \ \ = G = 7q6 C13 E- ® 27 ° \ � ® / 2 \ % } gg \ e0 s - ao E � � ƒ &ƒ ® = 5 _ / G2 � 0a) � tm ° 5 / % g2 �5y ± t $ a22 / t72 = k \3 § \ k § / ) .- ( kk / \ \ k \ &% o E 2 - 03 -7-0 � o = 2 E _ 2 -2 C) \ � 0 -E * ® k7 .§ \ / .2 /w \ § : \ / g / \ » 622 / % 222 £ 2 &- p t £_ $ 2 a$ k £ = m 3 E ( a 0 C13 = g = _ � _ '�5 F- E R & \ DL� 44 5a2 ® \ \ � / / 7 ® me \ \7A �� '� 0 ® \ � ƒ/ * 0 ® / k $ 2 2 - ¥ 9 [ / \ .q 2k \ .q2 \ ƒ k 0- = ® E = e2 � 76cocc e ® m \ - p ® 23 - � = g0 :3 � -0o 6 = = \ ° ( $ LE _j U) eLE _j ® 2 / 5 kg \ ± ± � ) E / C'±-Lu7 ) ) 2 a) ¥ cc 2:1 ¥ 2392 = = C) E# / t = \ a) t = C) £&may$ = co / 2 2 '/7\ § y8 § &\ / § / co 4 c a 4) o r U o N _ cn cn cn • O C C L 0 � C N N O) 0 7 0 + O O N • O U Nom--' -° 'O 0 0 0 I C cc N � N ° � � N � cB U cB Cc � -O N N � a3 � C) .�--� � =p � L a) -O 0) -O ° 'O -0 (N6 O O a3 a3 'O N N cc ca a3 N � � O — L a� 0 12 0 a3 in N 0 cc . p c ca° a) N m o m N 0 U a3 6 0) -O ° 0 0 °)° ° > Q � a) C13 a) N o ° = c 3.2 O o a3 -O 2 • u O O G) `o> N N c —cca a p m 0 m E o o z, E -O a) aN c 3 O a) O o a) p � ca 0 d U U S 0 Qj a) = °a) o f p p o E p a)° o O o o ° o a) ca aS� 3 N O ca cc :9 s ) N O z 4 � C ? t N O p D O C) 0 Q > E S. 12 w a3 • > ca a3 i o` �'C13 0) Q 0 > is C Q U O o o v) cc °- ° o °> : 0 a� cN a Q • c2La o ° N p a3 N ca N ' Q 'o o a�'i a) c C� O -0 o 0 o f o a) u � ca -0 a) 0) a) CL v c c 0 � • c N c in O :3 -p .,I: wCo c U U aS p a) n n n n O C13 c c O ,O N G) +_ c • � O � Q G) U 2 C/) C/) C/) X d d d w • R5 `O iN • a3 > -O -O a3 -O -O a3 o O o O 0 0 c N C13 _0 v!i a)o .0 aO 3 cn -v p aO 3 C .o N z .N) > N '(0 -O Q :3 ca Q O N o oE d 0 p ~ d o :3 > a) E L a) ) a) oa) N a) ° a ai i >, 3 — a3 O o c E w E C) p 7 C) > o o ,_0 Q Q 0 ") `- CD -p a) -p o E a) -0 c a) N Q O N > o N p ° > o a) p N .a o a) o .D > N N ,N N y N ,N N -0 I U c a) o ° O a) (3 a) a3 a3 c N api ~ o o O O • o '° ° ch o '° a) 'E 0 '° ° a3 n U • ca a) cB V � a�.O � - � a>i Q 015 -o � . a Z- > ca -o c Z- O E >a) c�U E -00 C/) s = U)o 0 '5 ca °2 —1 . ) ca —j i -a L- � ci a) )M N .2 a`) ° a) ,:r N a) O Co .0 E 117 a) N a) a) L ° m .� °— c ° m a`) a) c a c`a ° :� v — is ° :� a)) 0 p E N v � a)) > p c cc a�i c ca 5 ° > O O Oc 1 o . N m � E U U c o vo Nw a G) U � � CIO C J J Cn C � CIO Q E C vS 0 o 0 CL ° Cc a) v) I c-0a o -0 cc a) O O n ."' C.O.) --� 0 0 cc O U • a) 0 ca o O Q I O a) a) O O ca 76 0 ca a) ca c .0 _0 o c ccc U o O • ca a) :2 cm -0 cc c 0 C • v a) LM � � � a) a • 5 -0 -0 ca o w a) c0) Cc -2 a) a) o U U ° o _0 2 O 0 a -0 a) -0 ° U °- -0 -° ca ca O O = O a) U �U a) w = 0 C13 h O N 2 0 . C13 C13 O ca o COO• o -o -a H " & o U v C13- 0 > o > a 0 c v o 0 N ca a) -0 a) 0 a) a ca ca > E v Z- o .Lm > ca ai w c0`i a>i a>i _ Q a) a > o ca a) ca �' c�a c E o .? m m > o 0 j • O O m D 0 ca .� a c ao ca is in a) a -2 -2 ca c�a o .0 ca D > �' C� 0 ca � N Q CD O O a c • Q 0 caa w ca -0 `o -0 E a�> O m E c a c = -0 E a) c 0 0 0 .� • 0 0 — 0 0 � �`0 is a 0 � 0 0 0 0 E > O 0 0 0 m 0 a) a >, C� o -0 0 m -0 .°� -0 cC-a a` O ° U o 0 in .LM in � -0 o in — -0 o `o 'r- o ca a) o a) ca a) a) c' ca L > 0 N W c a) 0 ca 0 0 0 c a) a) 0 O O n 0) U) � � 0 0) ca 0) 0 � � �' � � N 00 co • Q Q ca Q ca Q Q Q 0 Q w U N c N .o c(D • o c 0 cn cn co cn > � —° c a—° a . a a 0ai >, p a=) .2 o � p o = — a = 0 C13 76 a� L ' ° 0> o L � 0) Uo)° 0° m 0 ca ca 0- 0 o Co a cac M a E a = o E a a d o ca d .o E d ° °- E Co O a a) . o O a 0 0) ` ca ° E c ca cri D c° L o° Q o cc -0 o in a) c c .� c is :- — -0 a — o O c .E r — O :� '— ca — 0 0 c . r- - O c0) 0_ 0 0 Cl)) E c .— E o a) I) 0 0 ) c a) 0 0 0 c a) 0 0 a`� a) . a ^, CN .N '° '— E O .N .O O O ON .N '° OU E ON .N '° N -0 °� fA cn q) CN (j a) -E Q a) C a) °- O O a) (a a) � Q a) O O a) ~ O O N .--� (a • 0 cn a) .--0 0 .0 a) 0 cn '-- 0 '0 a) o 3 0 ca .� ca a`) 0 ca .� a) D 0 ca .s a3 0 ca .S a>) c0a v cc 2 0 0 0 a) > � 0 0 0 a) 0 E 0 0 a) > 0 0 0 a) 0 ° 't 0 ® --0 c " o —° c a ca)i —° aci o o --0 0 '.E 0 .o cam = � .0 ca 00 E .0 ca > _ � .o ca a .0 — ern > c° — � cn �' — 76co < . 00 — � cn LE OJ � M v a) a OJ > —° a ca a) a ca ) ca ca I -,- > a) co a) a) a) E a>i ^ a) a) a) o °° a) a) a>i c' aa)) a) 0 .� a) ca > ) � -0 � o 0 � 0 .— � — � -0z0 0 E J) Lo 2 C13 C> c E ca -° 2 ca -° c caa -o >, a) c0a a i c0a c0a c c ccc ._�° ._�''c O E Q .� E .� E m .E a—>i E m '� E .� E m E c E '� N % k \ )& / . � 13k ) 2 % $ 0 f / � z § /k a z ) a c % % 5 D \ / .� _ E / 2 § \ > a 2 k § m40 k0 � 7 k2 E X LLJ muo R5 -0 \ n E 72 \ ° 7 ( � ® � f / &\ 3 - = e = & \ � 20F 3 2977 " f = E R &$ ® 2 = @ e § c _ a) \ ._ E � 7 / \ ƒk e \ / / a) 0) q / E ° 03 :7) CL \ /^ = o � a) — C13 oE -5E � Ea) ° o a) c o q /2 o r \ / k f \/ % / § E2 = � . = .22 - m k \2 S E 2 0 E \ ® § \ ° 0 .E G = < ® G m = c \ / \ \« \ et / $ ak22 § ± rE\ / ¥ 2 g o .Lm.E3 ge 3\ ¥ * / 2 =£ \ 22 '/ /2 t g f G / / S o .� _ �� — / % gkQEE £ $ / a £ ese2e O / 3.1 BACKGROUND The City- of South San Francisco is updating the Genentech Master EIR (2007 HEIR). The 2007 HEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2005072165, was certified by the City- of South San Francisco on March 14, 2007, and may- be found at http://«ellink.ssf.filet/«ellink8/Browse.asps. The 2007 HEIR is incorporated by reference into this SMEIR. The City- is conducting additional environmental review in order to supplement the 2007 MEIR so that it may continue to rely upon that document in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the previously approved 2007 Master Plan. This SMEIR analyzes the same 220-acre 2007 Stud- _area, and focuses on changes to the relevant policies and standards, changes in the circumstances under which build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would occur, and/or new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 2007 HEIR certification. This SMEIR evalhiates the remaining development capacity- within the Genentech Master Plan District,which is approximately- 2,708,100 square feet (sf), as well as the updated cumulative scenario as described in Section 3.7 below. The project characteristics are described at length in Chapter 3 of the 2007 MEIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. Although there are no changes proposed to the 2007 Master Plan, the project described in the 2007 :NIEIR is summarized below for informational purposes. 3.2 EXISTING SETTING 3.2.1 Regional Location The project area is the same 220-acre Stud-Area as analyzed in the 2007 HEIR. The Genentech Master Plan District extends over 162 acres. The project area is located in the City- of South San Francisco, in the East of 101 _area, along the western shoreline of central San Francisco Bad-, about 13 miles north of San Francisco International _airport (SFLA) and 10 miles south of downtown San Francisco. Figure 3-1 (Project Location and Regional Vicinity-) shows the regional location of the SMEIR Stud-_area. 3.2.2 Project Location The HEIR Stud-Area is located within the East of 101 _area. Genentech's existing South San Francisco Central Campus (the Campus) is bounded by the San Francisco Bay- in the north and east and is connected by Ovster Point /Forbes Boulevard and Grand Avenue to L'S 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of the Campus. Figure 3-2 (Genentech Existing Development) is a map of the existing Campus buildings. City of South San Francisco 3-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR I- W/0" .......... M', % Projec t Location 0 �,,I YX,Nows ........... A/1, N",I,/�, 2 Q, ��,,�,�ammwmwv ,"I,g Q s k k 00 7 4 �101 V, alp Ap E/M;;;/////"/"�',`,M. "'K �W ,MIQfi �O N11 1, Z Study Ar '7 ft ,M/ .......... pv, Inter r"'!Ay� 01 T w,-�, �ALE Figure 3-1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity ATKINS =a �, E Z HN L CL Z O o N W 1 4 1 1 f , , / � f c aa 1 p v. I � 0 y 2�.iI.::V y:;atuuaE) boz000l. The Genentech Campus is within the jurisdiction of other agencies in addition to the City- of South San Francisco. Along the Genentech Campus shoreline, the Bav Conservation and Development Commission's (BCDC) jurisdiction and permitting authority embrace a 100-foot shoreline band. In addition, the entire Genentech Campus is within the Federal Aviation administration (FAA) height limits for the SFIA. 3.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses Figure 3-2 shows the existing on-site development, as well as the adjacent uses. Surrounding development includes the following: • The Oyster Point Marina Park—The Marina is a combination of Coastal Commercial and park uses, including site of the future South San Francisco Ferry Terminal, currently under construction, and anticipated to be operational a the end of 2012. The Marina is directly-north of the Genentech Campus. • San Francisco Bay Trail—Portions of the San Francisco Bay Trail, a mostly contiguous trail around the San Francisco Bad-, outline the coast around the Genentech Campus, providing recreational uses as well as pedestrian and bicycle access. In addition, the San Francisco Bay- Conservation and Development Commission's (BCD(.) jurisdiction and permitting authority embrace a 100-foot shoreline band. • San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) SFIA is a major influence on land use in the East of 101 _area. SFLA is approximately- 13 miles south of the Genentech Campus. • Caltrain Station and BART Station—There are shuttle bus links to the South San Francisco BART Station and to the Soutli San Francisco Caltrain Station. The BART station is approximately-4 miles away-. The Caltrain station is approximately-2 miles away-. 3.2.4 General Plan/Zoning Designations The project site is currently- zoned as Business Teclinolog Park (SSF11(. Chapter 20.110) and Genentech Master Plan District (SSF11(. Chapter 20260),with a narrow strip of land that extends south along the coastline zoned as Parks & Open Space (SSF11(. Chapter 20.130). Permitted uses include, among otliers, offices, research and development, and limited industry, and certain warehousing, storage, and distribution uses. Certain manufacturing activities are allowed within the scope of research and development and light industry uses. The majority of the project area is designated in the General Plan as Business and Teclinology Park,with the southern portion along the San Francisco Bay- designated as Park and Recreation in the City's General Plan. The small Park and Recreation General Plan land use category includes the Bay- Trail and coastal beach areas. The Business and Teclinolo Park land use category is designated for campus-st<1e development for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-researcli facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline- oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses. Uses permitted under the Park and Recreation land use category are parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. City of South San Francisco 3-5 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Genentech, founded in 1976 as the first bioteclinology company, is the largest employer in South San Francisco. As of December 31, 2011, Genentech employed 3,836 employees within the in the MEIR Stud- _area. Genentech employs a wide range of fiuictions at its Campus, which include research and development, manufacturing and distribution, marketing and administration. In 1993, the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1993 Master Plan) was adopted in the South San Francisco General Plan to minimize future impacts and conflicts or policy inconsistencies. The Genentech R&D Overlay District, as Chapter 20.260 in the SSFIIC,was established at the same time. In 2007, the City- Council adopted the updated Genentech Ten Year Facilities Master Plan, supported by a Master Environmental Impact Report (2007 HEIR), and amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (R&D). The 2007 MEIR evaluated a stud- area of approximately 220 acres, of which 160 acres currently- comprise the Genentech Master Plan District (then referred to as the "Genentech R&D Overlay District", and referenced herein as the Genentech Master Plan District). The 2007 Master Plan "[a]rticulates vision and policies that will serve as a general guide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals" (see 2007 Master Plan at page 3). It does not provide a binding schedule for the constriction of individual buildings or for full build-out. At build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech expects to approximately double its 2006 size (from 2.8 million square feet [sf] to roughly 6 million sf) of office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking strictures. Table 3-1 (Existing and Proposed Master Plan _areas) shows the existing development and the remaining proposed development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District. This SMEIR evaluates the remaining development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District,which is approximately 2,708,100 sf as shown in Table 3-1.}No changes have been proposed to the adopted 2007 Master Plan. 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following objectives were identified in the 2007 HEIR and are unchanged in this SMEIR: 4 Given that the 2007 Master Plan does not mandate the timing or sequence of construction of specific structures, where the analysis of specific impacts requires an estimate of building schedule as a model input, reasonable working assumptions have been made. For purposes of analysis in this S:XIEIR,complete build-out is assumed by 2013 for all sections except transportation. For transportation,the analysis assumes complete build-out by 2033,based on the East of 101 Traffic Study,which represents significant new information or changed circumstances warranting an update to the 2007:XIEIR analysis. These assumptions produce a`worst-case scenario" for all potential environmental effects. 3-6 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Table 3-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas 2007 2011 Existing 2007 Approved Remaining Development Genentech Genentech Capacity under Master Capacity under 2007 Approved R&D Overlay Master Plan Plan/Genentech Master Plan/Genentech District District Master Plan District Master Plan District Land Area(acres) 125 162 200 38 Office(sf) 1,009,00 1,091,430 2,632,000 1,540,570 Laboratory(sf) 1,007,000 1,010,300 2,000,000 989,700 Manufacturing(sf) 724,000 1,046,900 1,046,000 -900 Amenity(sf) 75,000 143,270 322,000 178,730 Total Building Area(so 2,815,000 3,291,900 6,000,000 2,708,100 SOURCE: Genentech (2011). 3.4.1 City of South San Francisco Policies The City s policies, as described in the General Plan' are listed below: ■ Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of nonresidential uses ■ Promote campus-std-1e bioteclinol<<gy, high-teclinol<<.9y, and research and development uses ■ Unless otherwise stated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 ■ Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot size ■ Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, and support commercial establishments such as dry cleaners, to meet the need of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or techtiolo<7 campuses 3.4.2 Genentech's Project Objectives The 2007 Master Plan outlines a potential expansion that would allow the Campus to grow up to approximately- six million square feet during the ten-rear planning period and serves several purposes: • _articulates vision and policies that will serve as a general Ltiide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals. • Fosters development of a campus befitting its setting on the City s eastern bad- shore that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront. • Promotes alternatives to individual automobile transportation to further the City's transportation olbjectives, by emphasizing a compreliensive Transportation Demand Management JDA1 program, and pedestrian connectivity throughout the campus to promote ease of movement between buildings. s Dyett&Bhatia, City ofSoath San Francisco G eneralPlan(October 13, 1999). City of South San Francisco 3-7 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR • Establishes the basis for zoning provisions that have been included in an amended Genentech Research and Development Overlay District. • Provides design guidelines that will serve as a basis for design review and approval for development in the Master Plan area. 3.5 INTENDED USES OF THIS SMEIR This SMEIR was prepared to analyze whether any- new information of substantial importance has arisen or substantial changes in the project or in circumstances under which the project will be implemented have occurred that could potentially- result in new or substantially- more significant impacts that were not previously analyzed in the 2007 HEIR, and if so, whether there are additional feasible mitigation measures that would eliminate such impacts or reduce them to less than significant. This document is intended to serge as an informational document. Additionally, this SMEIR, together with the 2007 MEIR, will provide the primary source of environmental information for the lead agency to consider when exercising permitting authority or approval power related to implementing subsequent projects as part of the 2007 Master Plan. This SMEIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables them to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the proposed action. In a practical sense, EIRs fiuiction as a technique for fact-finding, allowing an applicant or developer, concerned citizens, agency staff, and decision-makers an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts throtigh a process of full disclosure. 3.6 PUBLIC ACTIONS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED The City- is the lead agency for the project. The 2007 HEIR together with this SMEIR are anticipated to be used by the City to evaluate the environmental impacts created by implementation of the 2007 Master Plan as it reviews subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. The City Council will consider approval of the subsequent projects anticipated in the 2007 Master Plan as part of the City's development review process and would certify the project's Final EIR in advance of future project approvals. The following specific actions must be completed for the project: • Certification of the Final SMEIR (City Council). The City will consider certification of this SMEIR. • All future developments within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan will be subject to a separate permit approval. Under the CEQA standards for Master EIRs, the final SMEIR is intended to serge as the CEQ A review for future development projects that are within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan and consistent with the SMEIR. However, the City- will determine the appropriate CEQ_A, review as established in SSFIIC Chapter 20260.003 and the requirements of CEQ_A, and the CEQ A Guidelines. 3.6.1 State and Local Agencies In addition to the Cit< (Lead _agency) other agencies whose approval may be required for future development projects implementing the 2007 Master Plan include, but are not necessarily limited to: 3-8 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR • California Department of Transportation (Caltr<ns) • California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) • San Francisco Bay-Regional Water Quality Control Board (RNVQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board (SN\-R(.B) • Bad-Area_fir(Qality Management District (13AAQ1ID) • San Francisco Bad-Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 3.7 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Since certification of the 2007 MEIR, several development applications have been approved by the City. Consequently, the cumulative development scenario for the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan with respect to traffic has been updated in this SMEIR. CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15355 defines "cumulative impacts" as '*vo or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts." In general, these impacts occur in conjunction with other related developments whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project under review. In order to analyze the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with existing development and other expected future growth, the amount and location of growth expected to occur (in addition to the project) must be considered. As stated in CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15130(b), this reasonably foreseeable growth may be based on either of the following, or a combination thereof. • A list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the agency • A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which is designed to evahiate regional or area wide conditions For the purposes of this SMEIR, the potential cumulative effects of the project are based upon a list of projects and allowed redevelopment that was included in the Traffic Stud- for the East of 101 _area: In the City- of South San Francisco (East of 101 Study), prepared by TJK1I Transportation Consultants in October 2011. This list of projects and allowed redevelopment was utilized in preparing the updated Traffic _ rtalysis for the project (refer to Section 4.4 [Transportation/Traffic]). Information regarding cumulative projects, both approved and pending,was also solicited from the City's planning department. The purpose of East of 101 Stud-was to evalhiate traffic impacts, identifv short-term (2015) and long- term (2035) roadway and circulation needs, determine potential improvement measures beyond the 2007 East of 101 Planned Improvements, and identifv anv critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process in light of future land use conditions in the East of 101 _area. This summary of projections represents the City's known future development within the East of 101 Area, and pro�-ided for consistent analysis with the City's East of 101 Traffic Model. The Projection of allowed redevelopment within the East of 101 Area is provided in Table 3-2 (Cumulative Projects Located within the East of 101 Area). The East of 101 Area redevelopment includes Phase I of the Oyster Point Development, which will be completed by 2015, and Phase 11, which will be completed by 2035. Based on information/data provided by the City- and utilized in the East of 101 Stud- regional model, the East of 101 Area redevelopment is presented for the year 2035 in Table 3-2: City of South San Francisco 3-9 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Table • - Projects Located within the East of 1 - • Project Type I Project Components EAST OF 101 AREA(LONG-TERM-2035 ■ 50,000 sf of commercial uses Oyster Point Development(Phase I&11) ■ 1,7 hotel rooms ■ 1,710,230 sf of R&D uses ■ 920,000 sf of office uses ■ 20,000 sf of quality restaurant uses ■ 673,302 sf of commercial uses ■ 9,258,902 sf of R&D uses Rest of East of 101 Land Use ■ 1,478,570 sf of office uses ■ 11,291,567 sf of manufacturing uses ■ 3,735 hotel rooms ■ 290,794 sf of home center uses SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants,Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area:In the City of South San Francisco (October 2011). 3.8 REFERENCES Dyett&Bhatia. City of South Sera Fizxmi.reo Gelloal Plall, October 13, 1999. Geiaelmech Celmal Campus Teia-Year 'Alasto'Mali, 2005. Geraeratech CoipwateFreilitiei llasto'Mali, 2005. Genentech.Annual Report 2011 for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Presented to the City- of South San Francisco. Prepared by Genentech, Inc., 2011. South San Francisco, City-of. haste'EIR for Geraeratech Coipwate F—acilitier Reiear Ch &Der elopuleiat 01'el1q), Di.rt1ict E.%pala.riora alid haste'Mali t,�d rte. SCH# 2005072165, certified March 2007. TJK1f Transportation Consultants. Ti iffe,Stu 1y forthe E r.it of 101 Ayer:Iia the City of,South,S rra I7C11?ei.ie0, October 2011. 3-10 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS The SMEIR updates the 2007 SMEIR by analyzing substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken and new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the 2007 HEIR was certified, which mad- result in new or substantially- more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the 2007 HEIR. The analysis is limited to the four following impact areas: • _fir(Qality • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Land Use/Planning • Transportation/Traffic All other topics were adequately- analyzed in the 2007 HEIR and require no further analysis, as determined in the IS/NOP (see Appendix A). This chapter is the primary component of the Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report (SMEIR), as it provides information on the project site's existing conditions, the type and magnitude of the project's potential environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid such impacts. The existing conditions component of the analysis defines the environmental conditions as they exist on and near the project site, while project impacts are defined as the project's effect on the existing environment. Mitigation measures are designed to reduce a project's potential impact. The purpose of this section is to inform readers of the type and magnitude of the project's environmental impacts and how such impacts would affect the existing environment. A "significant effect" is defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 as "a substantial, or potentially- substantial, adverse change in and- of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. _fin economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant." The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the existing conditions (or setting), as well as a discussion of the regilatory framework relevant to that issue area. Following the setting is a discussion of the project's impacts relative to the issue area. Within the impact analvsis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the "Thresholds of Significance," which are those criteria used to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection programmatically describes each impact of the project, project requirements and mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. City of South San Francisco 4-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evalhiates the impacts associated with the project in conjunction with other past, present, and probable future development in areas causing;related impacts. 4-2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4.1 AIR QUALITY 4.1 .1 Background The 2007 MEIR evaluated the potential for project implementation to affect air quality, specifically with respect to criteria pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants (TACs). Criteria pollutants are emitted during project-related constniction and operational activities. The 2007 HEIR evaluated emissions based on the 1999 Bad-Area _fir(Qality 1lanagement District (B_ AQ1ID) CEQA Guidelines. Subsequently, in 2010 the B AAQ:NID CEQ)A Guidelines «%ere revised, with the most recent update in May 2011 (2011 B AAQ:NID CEQA Guidelines). In March 2012, the Superior Court for the Court of Alameda County issued a judgment finding that B_ AQ1ID failed to comply with CEQA in adopting its revised CEQ_A, Guidelines, and decided that the 2011 B_ AQAID CEQ-A, Guidelines are invalid on procedural grounds (Crliforiaia Buildup Indlu. il, Assoti�ltioa r. Bur), A�va Air Quality lbliggeuleiat Distliet, Al. Sup. Ct., March 5, 2012, Case No. RG10- 548693). The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering B_ AQ1fD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the B AAQ:NID had complied with CEQA. Subsequently, to comply with the Court's order, B_ AQ:NID is no longer recommending that they be used to determine a project's significant air quality impacts. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c), "when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may- consider thresholds of significance previously- adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence." This SMEIR conservatively assumes that the 2011 B_ AQ1ID CEQ-A, Guidelines were developed with substantial evidentiary support, and represent more accurate thresholds of significance and provide a more accurate methodole<� for purposes of analyzing potential air quality impacts than B_ AQ1fD's 1999 version of the (.E(_)-A, Guidelines. Under CEQA, it is ultimately up to the Lead Agency to determine which thresholds of significance and methodology to apply. Because the City- has determined that the revised thresholds and methodologies prescribed by the 2011 B_ AQ1ID CEQ)A Guidelines are amply supported by evidence in the record, the City has determined to adopt them for purposes of the analysis in this SMEIR. N\Iiile the project description has not changed, with the revisions reflected in the 2011 B AAQ:NID CEQ)A Guidelines and the City's determination to rely upon them, the methodology and thresholds that were used in the 2007 HEIR have changed. Similarly, the 2007 HEIR addressed the potential for the project to result in impacts from the generation of TACs. With the 2011 update to the B_ AQ:NID CEQ_A, Guidelines and the City's determination to rely upon them, the process for evalhtating impacts from T ACs has changed. This SMEIR therefore utilizes the new methodologies and thresholds in order to update the analysis in the 2007 HEIR In addition, the following analysis relies upon regional emissions inventories that have been revised since certification of the 2007 MEIR, as well as other new information that has become available since certification of the 2007 HEIR. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4.1 .2 Introduction Section 4.3 of the 2007 HEIR (Sections 4.3.1 thotigh 4.3.4), incorporated by reference herein as thotigh full- set forth, describes the existing air quality of the project area. The environmental setting, inchding descriptions of existing air quality data and sensitive receptors, both on site and in the vicinity of the project site, remains as described in the 2007 HEIR. The existing regional air qualit< and attainment status for the Basin hare, however, been updated in this SMEIR. This section evaltiates whether there are art - new or substantially more severe significant impacts on air quality that could result from implementation of the project in light of the new methodologies, guidelines, plans, standards, and thresholds of significance that have been adopted since the 2007 HEIR was certified. Specifically, this section includes the potential for the project to: conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air gtiality plan (AQP) of the B_ AQ1fD; violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (the Bay Area is considered to have not attained the federal and State ozone standards or the State standards for respirable particulate matter [PNI,o]), or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts relating to the project creating objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people were determined to not be potentially significant in the IS/NOP and are not further evaluated in this SMEIR. Information reported in this section is derived from: the United States Environmental Protection agency (USEPA) and B_ AQ1ID air emission models that predict regional emissions and localized pollutant concentrations, and traffic data prepared by Atkins. Information on climate change is presented in Section 42 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of this SMEIR. No areas of controversy were identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A). 4.1 .3 Environmental Setting As described on pages 4.3-1 throtigh 4.3-12 of the 2007 HEIR, South San Francisco and the SMEIR Stlidv Area are located in San Mateo County, within the nine-count- San Francisco Bay Area _fir Basin. Specifically, the SMEIR Sthidv Area is located within the Peninsula climatological subregion of the Basin, that extends from northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. _fir pollutant emissions within the Bay- Area are generated by stationary- and mobile sources. Stationary- sources can be divided into tvo major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are ustially associated with manufacturing and industry-. Examples are boilers or combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat. Area sources are widely distributed and produce mart- small emissions. Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. Chi-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and self-propelled construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the Basin. _fir pollutants can also be generated by the natural ert-ironment such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspended in the air during high winds. 4.1-2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IIIIIIIIIIIII Regional Air Quality Measurements of ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants are used by the USEPA and the California _fir Resources Board (California _FRB) to assess and classify the air quality- of each air basin, county, or, in some cases, a specific developed area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with federal and state standards. If a pollutant concentration in an area is lower than the standard, the area is classified as being in "attainment." If the pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is classified as a "nonattainment" area. If there are not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated "unclassified." The EPA and California _FRB use different standards for determining whether the Bay- Area Basin is an attainment area. Under national standards, the Bav Area Basin is currently classified as a nonattainment area for ()zone (O;). The Bay- Area Basin is in attainment or designated as unclassified for all other pollutants under national standards. Under State standards, the Bay- Area Basin is designated as a nonattainment area for O; and respirable particulate matter (P1f1,), and an attainment area for all other pollutants. Table 4.1-1 (State and Federal Criteria_fir Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources) discloses the health effects of each criteria pollutant, and the federal and state attainment status for each. The emissions inventor- for the entire Bay- Area Basin and San Mateo County is summarized in Table 4.1-2 (Bay- Area 2010 Estimated _average Dail)- Emissions). In the Bay- Area Basin, motor vehicles generate the majority- of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), and carbon monoxide (CO). Stationary- sources generate the most sulfiir dioxide (SO,) and areaNvide sources generate the most airborne particulate matter (P:Nl). IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Local Air Quality The B AAQ:NID monitors ambient air pollutant concentrations through a series of monitoring stations located throughout the Bay- _area. N\Iiile no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, B_ AQ1fD samples local air quality- from the nearby- Arkansas Street station in San Francisco, approximately 8 miles from the HEIR Study- _area. Table 4.1-3 (Ambient _fir Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants) identifies the ambient pollutant concentrations that have been measured at the Arl;ansas Street-San Francisco monitoring station throtigh the period of 2008 to 2010. Monitoring was not conducted at this station for SO,. Therefore, no site-specific data is available for those emission levels. 4.1 .4 Regulatory Framework This section provides a summary- of federal, state, regional and local regulations designed to address air quality-within the Bay-_area. The federal and state regulations are unchanged since the 2007 HEIR,while B_ AQ1ID has updated their CEQA Guidelines and Clean_fir Plan as detailed below. City of South San Francisco 4.1-3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR o a`� o 0 rj) o Q. E o U cc E cm a) o is 0o cc :'L � 0 ° D O O o2 E a �oz 0 a) o >, o c .0 in a) a3 ca l — is is > o L o -0 cc o)-o 0 - � p_ a) c=a °' o o vi 0 p Q E c c a3 a) _0 a3 'E M 0 E U) n is v a) O m 5 � -0 CCa a) E c u)i 'c� c c N C O U) Q -0 = CO? > N 0 aj x. a) � � � E m 0 -° c � � 0 O aa)) `o aa)) 0) aa) ' v in 00 U p -0 c-°a c°n c0) u) N = � ca E aa)) o ° vi o a3 E E a) > 0) > u aa)) o,c�a a) a) 0 0 0 E a3 a) o a > -0 o a—) E — a) ��a .D) 0 0 0 0)45 .— E ° 0 ° ° : E _0 O o 3 ¢ o . 0 c � E 0 E 0 E a) 0 c as a) o E 0 c o p • 0 .� vS ca 0 > ca E a3 ° .� 0 a3 0 0 E a3 c) o � c) o � c a O a) 0 E a) pin ° O _ c c . 0 a) 0 C • 0 a) 0 0 a) c=a O o) a) 0 E ca a0i ccaa E a) c�a Q LL 0 > .� c Q .� LL E O ca�a) ci cc -a 2 cc a E 8 LL c- Lx • a) U) -0 0 o) a) -0 0 > aS 0 -0 ca a) a3 —00 � .0 a3 (06 (a c6 � a3 73 a3 U u ° a) o U o f o .�? c0i c`a � v > 0 0 = 0 > 0 p N c a) E 0 5 a) E O o o -o ° 0 0, aU'i = S o —0 > > a3 U .� vi'> c � a3 E a3 a) o • CL Q D .X c o) ° . _ 0- E 0 aa)) a) o f 0 • O a) a >+ 2 U 0 J O .— — to � � (6 O C ca �, cc • a a3 0 0 0 a3 0 o — 0 a) — 0 0 c 0 is 0 a) 0 0 o a) 0 a) _ 'p cc aj E a) p O ai ° 0 a) 0 0 ° E 0 c0a ° a) 0 �' 0 Q t 0 O � E _ ) cc � 'Q= � � c�a — o is c0) aa)) a) i) � '> 0 � � c 0 a) 0 a3 a3 0 0 cn c 0 0 N • v g c ) v 0 > aU'i o � 0 0 � 0 ° .� a) a3 cn > _ o ca u) : a>i m a) a) u)i- fl 0 ° a>i >1 ca > is Q aa) is 2 0 c c Q > .— — a) c0a cNa 2 0 c(0a = ° a�i 03 a�i 0 0 "= ca ca a) O a) Q c a) c 0 o).2 is > 0 0 ca • c .- ° 0 b 0 p a3 aS u) is a3 0 0 a3 .� � 0 a) u) E c cm ° u) _ ' a O is E c -o 2 c0) E ° o a3 a3 a3 E a3 p — E — 0 -0 ca 0 0 c 0 0 a) E E U cf)03• 2 U � L is L S ° 2 d cc D cca c D cn o - oh °I z QQ � ¢ QQQ QQ Q � - N • Q cc c 0 U c • N 0 N a) v k c, E E ° 0 E E E E U 'a Q Q Q Q d LL • UI u) °' Q O M Lo O Z I Z I �- �' O I— u) O u) r- M p Lo O M O O p 0 Lo Lo u) lf) Z • Cp O oo p ° o c) � � o • N o zz QQ QQ QQ zz z Q Q `a Q v c a � N O N O E Q E E E E E E E E E E E ® v � � � � • U O O N p N O p p l!') Lo O O O O O O O O • U c v pia 0 oia oia oia 0 E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Q W W Q N Q N Q N Q 0 N M • a) a) a c -° a) a) a) ca a3 i ° � _ .o LL a3 O a a 0 U U d � a- _j U -O >+ C N O uuU 0 'O L9)— = a3 N > > a3 U O a3 O 0 ca a) .c O c� O- p p Qc N O a 0 N O aS O -O = O O O C W O cc 76 O E _ w cc- 0� o O m °Q LU 0� c . o o N T a Q ' ° �U D t O N O Q O O O E .0 a) .� U O N W (`')-C O O N 0.- ° :Ea-0 � � is U) o N `c N° � N ° N N N� �' c ° c°a 0o cca Eo Q.L U Q IE� 0 D- L E U E O > aS — 'O aS m C N w N O N • N � O a) (B (A (6 a) Q O Q Q O N � .- a� Q : �N N 0) C U 1 . (D O af _ E.=C) � - O x • c is vS E c (D �� �.� D -° - m 0 ° _ c a) ai a' ° �`c 0 c� 0a �� -C o E N N O O N O U = N C w E U 'N Q O E O N O '— CO O U a3 N x S E O - O U-0 o, O N � O C13 a)E o c ° 3 > c 73 U a3 � ° O N c O c N N O d J) LU• o CC13 a->i � J axi E c 0 0 0 o � ° -0 c c 4 �? vi C13 .22 a c 4 0 0 .� a O -O O N O— N O C N W p ° � � � ' � N ° 0 0 a� ON 0 0 � �4 M a3 ° -° g 0co c �45-C 0 p 0 -C ao a 0 0 o v co a 0 0 � c 0 �� c > = c �i ° 2 cia o � 0 o a3 U C () 40 1U -4" .o S U IL w pN 0 c O e Q D 0 > ) cEa > c � :N a0 � 0 cDD- 3 � � 0 c .� O ° -� ° 0 0a4 o a� -C .c- 0 E � `o o O 0 U 0 a o > a 0� 0 0 0 CL 0 _ 00 a8 c�i� c � axi 4 ° � a0 ac� 0 � a EO 'N p0 ° a•a • U C Q U O O N N - vN 0 0 > (D (D> 0cc -C x Oz 0 0 0 C'° � a v a0 o ^ 0 �a D � O c Q (U U U ° 5 N � C CC A N Q Q 0 'o > c 00 a 0-0 (1) c � 0 � > z 000 c o U U U N� 'g 0 � O a 0 c - ° 3 O • N O (B (6 (6 U > N N N (� O T OU � ) o c� G1 O N N N at O O N 0 00 Q •• `� u z z z O p T � O U LL LL LL U �' x a N w-> 0 o a -q _ = c O 0 N N Lo O N O U • 0 4 O (D -C -Q-C = 0 Nv E � c (D 0 00 c 0) aco c c `a Q � ..� .� �C - 0 U 0 0 N (D wo 0 � O o `N ° ZZ>^� a0.� Doc o > 0c a 00 N O p = 0 a) o C Q J O N O C N oE � E c � U) _0 0 O N� � 0 .a c o 0 (D c QE g o .D a) C, '� a O ii U � c � O� � 3 N Qa 0� O N N C') p Z = N I E O O O O Q ? N , O O T° Q 0 °' p w - ° 2!- 0 O °- D- o c 0 c � o U o a� ° ° a� --a E � 0 o 0 0 0 c � U)� c �� O O<a 'a4 Oa D r D c `u N ax a 0 0 N c c �`c 3 o (D Q c c� 01 Q U C c x U O N-0 O O N N W O N O 0 U G N 0 0 -0 N U w N Co 5 Gl O ° O .� Z O N c c o > N co 0-0 D Z � N O O O N W co Q Q c C � c 0 maQ acO a (1)a0 � 0 - 0 � � az o U 'c N 0 Noa 0 0`c 0 0, 0 U 0 a ac c � �a o � o aa'i U ° a0a o � � aa 0 coo a0 �a 3 Q E U (D c� Q O UL m c � O a > v > � a = n Q a 4 (3 a a UCH Table Bay Area 2010 Estimated Average Daily Emissions Emissions in Tons per Day Emissions Source ROG NOx CO sox PM 10 PM25 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 359.2 414.2 1595.7 62.2 215.7 81.6 San Mateo County 33.4 56.2 158.3 8.6 20.9 7.6 SOURCE: California Air Resources Board,California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (2011), http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php. Table 4.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels During Such Violations Pollutant/Standard 2008 2009 2010 Ozone State 1-Hour>0.09 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Federal 1-Hour>0.12 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Federal 8-Hour>0.08 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 day Max. 1-Hour Conc.(ppm) 0.082 ppm 0.072 ppm 0.079 ppm Max.8-Hour Conc.(ppm) 0.066 ppm 0.056 ppm 0.051 ppm Carbon Monoxide State 8-Hour>9.0 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Federal 8-Hour?9.5 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Max.8-Hour Conc.(ppm) 2.29 ppm 2.86 ppm 1.37 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour>0.25 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Max. 1-Hour Conc.(ppm) 0.062 ppm 0.059 ppm 0.093 ppm Max.Annual Conc.(ppm) 0.016 ppm 0.015 ppm 0.013 ppm Suspended Particulates(PMio) State 24-Hour>50 fag/m3 0 days 4 days 0 days Federal 24-Hour>150 fag/m3 0 days 0 days 0 days Max.24-Hour Conc.(fag/m3) 41.3 fag/m3 36 fag/m3 39.7 fag/m3 Max.Annual Conc.(fag/m3) 23 fag/m3 18.6 fag/m3 NA Fine Particulates(PM2.5) Federal 24-Hour>35 pg/m3 0 days 1 days 3 days Max.24-Hour Conc.(Ng/m3) 39.2 pg/m3 49.8 pg/m3 45.3 pg/m3 Max.Annual.(Ng/m3) 11.7 pg/m3 NA NA SOURCE: California Air Resources Board,Top 4 Measurements and Days Above the Standard, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php (accessed January 19,2012). ppm =parts per million;fag/m3=micrograms per cubic meter 4.1-6 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Federal At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) is responsible for implementing national air quality programs. The USEP A enforces the federal Clean fir Act (C.AA) and associated N_ AQS. The USEPA has established N_ AQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone, CO, NO,, SO,, PAI1,, and P1f,;. The standards are established to protect the public health and welfare. The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA amendments of 1990 (C_NAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and riles and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The USEP A must review all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the federal CAA and its amendments and to determine whether implementing the SIPs will achieve air quality goals. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated time frame may result in sanctions being applied to transportation binding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin. The project must comply ith all required elements of the federal CAA and regulatory requirements of the USEP A. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII State The California ARB, a part of the Cal/EP A, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California and for implementing the California Clean fir Act (CCAA). The CCAA,which was adopted in 1988, required the California ARB to establish CAAQS (Table IILH-1). The California _FRB has established C_AAQS for sulfates, livdrogen sulfide, vine-1 chloride, visibility--reducing particulate matter, and the previously mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases the CAAQS are more stringent than the N_ AQS. Differences in the standards are generally- explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard-setting process and the interpretation of those studies. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The act specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and areaNvide emission sources and gives districts the authority to regulate indirect sources of emissions. Among the California ARB's other responsibilities are overseeing local air district compliance with California and federal laws, approving local air quality plans, submitting SIPs to the USEP_, monitoring air quality, determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility-engines, off-road vehicles, and biels. In 2000, the California _FRB began a program of identiffing and reducing risks associate with the particulate matter emissions from diesel-fueled vehicles in order to reduce diesel-related health risks. The California_FRB plan consists of promulgating new regilatory standards for all new on-road, off-road and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles, new retrofit requirements for existing on-road, off-road and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles and new diesel fuel regulations to reduce the sulfur content City of South San Francisco 4.1-7 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR of diesel fuel as required by advanced diesel emissions control systems. Under the plan, the overall risk reduction program is expected to result in a 75 percent reduction in diesel particulate emissions by 2010 (compared to 2000 levels) and an 85 percent reduction by 2020. The Air alid Lalid Use Halidbook: A Coplpluiaity Health Per.peetire (2005) provides California _FRB recommendations for the siting of new sensitive land uses (i.e., residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities) near recognized major sources of ZACs (e.g., freeways, large warehouses/distribution centers, rail yards, etc.). The Genentech Child Care Center located along Allerton Way would be considered a sensitive land use under these guidelines. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Regional Bay Area Air Quality Management District B AAQID is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the entire Bay Area _fir Basin, including San Mateo County. To that end, B_ AQ1ID, a regional agency, works directly- with the Association of Bay Area Governments (AB AG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (1ITC), and local governments, and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. B_ AQNID develops riles and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures throtigh educational programs or tines, when necessary. B_ AQNID is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point) sources and for assuring that State controls on mobile sources are effectively implemented. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Ozone Attainment Plans and Clean fir Plans that comply with the federal CAA and the C.C.-AA, to accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area Basin, meet the national and State _ambient_fir (Quality Standards (i AAQS)/CAAQS, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The Ozone Attainment Plans are prepared for the federal ozone standard, and the Clean _fir Plans are prepared for the State ozone standards. The most recent Ozone _attainment Plan was adopted by the B_ AQNID Board of Directors on October 2001 and demonstrates attainment of the federal ozone standard in the Bay-Area by 2006. In Jantuary 2006, the B_ AQNID adopted the 2005 Ozone Strategy to identify further steps needed to continue reducing the public's exposure to unhealthy levels of ozone. Most recently, the 2010 Clean fir Plan was adopted by B_ AQ1ID's Board of Directors on September 15, 2010,which serves to: • Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to implement"all feasible measures" to reduce ozone • Provide a control str<tte"y to reduce ozone (();), particulate matter (P1I), air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in a single, integrated plan • Review progress in improving air quality in recent years • Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe _according to the 2010 Clean _fir Plan, these planning efforts have substantially- decreased the population's exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Bay Area. 4.1-8 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR In 2003, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 656 (SB 656) to reduce public exposure to RNI, and P1f,;. SB 656 required California_FRB, in consultation with local air districts, to develop and adopt, bv January 1, 2005, a list of the most readily available, feasible, and cost-effective control measures that could be used bv California _FRB and the air districts to reduce P1f1, and P1f,;. In November 2005, B_ AQ1ID adopted a Particulate flatter Implementation Strategy (PHIS) focusing on those measures most applicable and cost effective for the Bad-_area. _although B_ AQ1ID is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority- to directly- re nilate the air qualit< issues associated with plans and new development projects within the Bad- _area. Historically, B_ AQ1ID has used its expertise and prepared the B_ AQ1ID California Environmental Quality _pct (CEQA) Guidelines to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evahiating potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bad- _area, consistent with the Ozone _attainment Plan and Clean _fir Plan. Specifically, the B_ AQ:NID CEQ)A Guidelines explain the procedures that B AAQ:NID recommends be followed during the environmental review processes required by CEQ A. The B_ AQ:NID CEQA Guidelines provide direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. B_ AQ1ID intends that by providing this niidance, the air qualit< impacts of plans and de�-elopment proposals will be anal zed accurately and consistently throughout the Bay_area, and adverse impacts will be minimized. B AAQ:NID adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on June 2, 2010, including revised recommended significance thresholds. B_ AQ:NID further revised the (.E(_)-A, Guidelines in May 2011. All of the adopted CEQ-A, thresholds of significance, except for the risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors, were effective June 2, 2010. Art Alameda Superior Court recently invalidated the June 2010 B_ AQ:NID CEQ-A, Guidelines (as updated in May 2011) on the basis that B_ AQ1ID failed to conduct a CEQ_A, analysis regarding the potential environmental effects of adopting the Guidelines. _accordingly, in flay 2012, B_ AQ:NID further updated the B A AQ:NID Guidelines removing the thresholds of significance and screening criteria. Notwithstanding these actions, the City- of South San Francisco has determined that the B_ AQ1fD Guidelines are supported by substantial evidence and particularly given B_ AQ1fD's expertise with respect to air quality; it will continue to apply the 2011 B_A QUID Guidelines (see CEQ A, Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)). The 2011 B_ AQ1ID CEQ)A Guidelines provide methodologies for analyzing air quality impacts for the updated CEQA significance thresholds for construction-related and operational emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, health risks, and GHGs. The 2011 B AAQ:NID CEQA Guidelines recommend an evaluation of air concentrations from a project's traffic sources if the project is expected to add 10,000 vehicles per day or 1,000 trucks per day to surrounding roads. The Guidelines also recommend a cumulative evahiation of sources, which includes mobile emissions from major roadways, on sensitive receptors affected by project sources. B_ AQ1fD defines a major roadway- as one with daily- traffic greater than 10,000 vehicles per day. City of South San Francisco 4.1-9 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Local South San Francisco General Plan Local jurisdictions, such as the City- of South San Francisco, have the authority- and responsibility- to reduce air pollution throtigh its police power and decision-making authority-. Specifically-, the City- is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City- of South San Francisco is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the Clean fir Plan. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energ- efficient streetlights, and svnchronized traffic signals. City- of South San Francisco environmental plans and policies recognize community- goals for air quality-. Chapter 7.3 of the South San Francisco General Plan identifies goals and policies that help the City- contribute to regional air quality improvement efforts, and are consistent with the Clean fir Plan. These are outlined as follows: • Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all federal and state ambient air gtiality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. • Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. • Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. • Cooperate with the B AAQ:NID to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including CO ozone, and PNIio, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by federal and state statutes. • Use the City's development review process and the CEQA regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. • _adopt the standard constniction dust abatement measures included in B_ AQ1fD's CEQA Guidelines. • Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-burning fireplaces and wood stores. • In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining existing ones. In accordance with CEQ_A, requirements and the CEQ_A, review process, the Cite assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially- adverse air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits and monitors and enforces the implementation of such mitigation. The City- does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City- and region will meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the B AAQ:NID and utilizes the B_ AQ:NID CEQ A, Guidelines as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. The goals and policies outlined in the City- of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan are consistent with the General Plan,as well as the Clean fir Plan. 4.1-10 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4.1 .5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Analytic Method The 2007 MEIR evaluated emissions based on the 1999 B AAQ:NID CEQ A Guidelines. Subsequently the B_ AQ1ID CEQA Guidelines were revised and then further updated in May 2011. As discussed above, the City- has adopted these revised 2011 B_ AQ1ID CEQ_ Guidelines, inchiding their prescribed methodologies and new thresholds of significance, for purposes of the analysis in this SMEIR. Thus while the project description has not changed, the analysis below is intended to update the prior analysis contained in the 2007 HEIR. This SMEIR evahiates full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan (approximately 2,708,100 sf of remaining development capacity). Construction Emissions Constniction activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in temporary emissions necessary to facilitate development within the project Study _area. The B_ AQ1ID has established thresholds for the analysis of constriction emissions which are published in the B_ AQ1ID CEQ_A, Guidelines. The constriction activities associated with the project would create diesel emissions and would generate emissions of dust Construction equipment used for development would also generate VOCs/ROGs, CO, N()s, S()s,P1flo, and P1f,; pollutants. While the amount of allowable development is known, the development will be spread out and the phasing of the construction will be determined by Genentech's need based on market demand for new office and research and development facilities. Therefore, the construction details would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify due to the variables associated with daily- constriction acti�-it- (e.g., construction schedule, number and types of equipment, etc.). Because the level of detail needed to model constriction related impacts is not available, a qualitative analysis is used to analyze the potential significance of project implementation with regards to constriction emissions. Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the project are estimated using the (.alEElfod computer model, with the information provided in Chapter 3 (Pro)ect Description) and trip generation rates derived from the traffic report (Appendix E). Operational emissions would be comprised of mobile source emissions and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the study area associated with operation of the project Area source emissions are generated by natural gas consumption for space and water heating, landscape maintenance equipment, and consumer products. To determine if an air quality impact would occur, the increase in emissions was compared with the B AAQ:NID's regional emissions thresholds published in the B AAQ:NID CEQ A, Guidelines. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan The most current air quality plan for the region is the recently adopted 2010 Clean fir Plan, which updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy and represents a unique approach to air planning by including greenhouse gases, as well as criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. For the 2010 Clean _fir Plan, City of South San Francisco 4.1-11 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR the vehicle mile estimates used in preparing the on-road mobile source inventory are the same as those used in the Transportation _fir Quality- Conformity- _ rtalysis for 1ITC's regional transportation plans. 1ITC's travel demand model utilizes regional demographic forecasts from ABAG's socioeconomic and population projections. Under B_ AQ:NID's new methodology, a proposed plan must demonstrate consistency with the 2010 Clean _fir Plan, as well as that the proposed plan's projected VNIT or vehicle trips increase is less than or equal to its projected population increase. To determine whether the project is consistent with the 2010 Clean fir Plan, it must support the primary goals of the Clean fir Plan (e.g., attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate), include feasible control measures from the Clean fir Plan, and it must not disrupt or hinder the implementation of any control measures established by the Clean fir Plan. Toxic Air Contaminants Diesel particulate matter (DRNl , a known toxic air contaminant,would be emitted from diesel-powered delivery tnicks traveling to and from the HEIR Stud- _area. Emergency diesel generators are also a source of potential intermittent diesel emissions, although these emergency generators would only be used intermittently and would not be used under normal daily operation of the project. To address DPI and other T_ C. emissions, the California _FRB published an Air alid L alid Use Halidbook: A Coplplu aity Health Pev peetir e (April 2005) as an "informational guide" to prioritize the important sources of T_ C.s and reduce exposures to proximate populations. The recently invalidated 2011 B_ AQ1ID CEQ_A, Guidelines recommended that general and area plans establish special overlay zones of at least 500 feet on each side of all freeways and high-vohime roadways and special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs, and that the plans identify goals, policies, and objectives to minimize potentially adverse impacts. To date, the City- has not established such zones within the Stlidv _area. The Stud- Area is located east of the US 101 Freeway- and currently contains office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking strictures. The project will allow for those land uses to continue and expand as identified in the 2007 Master Plan. The SIIEIR Stud-Area is not zoned for residential use, as such the only identified sensitive receptor within the SIIEIR Study Area would be the Genentech Child Care Center located along Allerton avenue, which is not considered a high-volume roadway. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this SMEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it would do any of the following: ■ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan ■ Violate any- air quality standard or contribute substantially- to an existing or projected air quality violation ■ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ■ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations 4.1-12 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Application of these thresholds is based upon the B AAQ:NID CEQA Guidelines Thresholds of Significance for criteria pollutants as follows.' Construction Emissions Thresholds The B_ AQ1ID CEQA Guidelines (as amended through May 2011) recommends that projects with constriction-related emissions that exceed and- of the following emissions thresholds should be considered significant. The B_ AQ1ID also recommends that and- constriction-related emissions from inditiridual detirelopment projects that exceed these thresholds be considered cumulatitirelv considerable: • ROG that exceeds 54 pounds per dad- • NOS that exceeds 54 pounds per dad- • P1Ilo (exhaust only-) that exceeds 82 pounds per dad- • P:NL 5 (exhaust only-) that exceeds 54 pounds per dad- • P1Ilo/P11,, (fiigitive dust) application of Best 1lanagement Practices^ As previously discussed, the constriction details would be difficult, if not impossible to quantify- due to the variables associated with daily- constriction activity (e.g., constriction schedule, number and types of equipment, etc.). Because the level of detail needed to model construction related impacts is not available, a qualitative analvsis is used to evaluate the potential significance of project implementation with regards to constriction emissions. Operational Emission Thresholds The B_ AQ1ID CEQA Guidelines (as amended through May 2011) recommends that projects with operation-related emissions that exceed either the average daily- emissions (expressed in pounds per dad-) or the maximum annual emissions (expressed in tons per year) thresholds should be considered significant. The B_ AQ1ID also recommends that any- operation-related emissions from individual development projects that exceed these thresholds be considered cumulatively considerable. The B AAQ:NID CEQA, Guideline thresholds for operation are presented in Table 4.14 (B AAQ:NID Operational Emissions Thresholds): 6 Although the l3AAQXID Guidelines suggest using a plan-level methodolog-for area plans such as the Master Plan,a project-level methodology is followed for purposes of this S:XLEIR due to the fact that the S:XIEIR is intended to serve as the CEQA review for subsequent individual development projects within the scope of the Master Plan and S:XIEIR. It is for this reason that the 2007:XIEIR applied aproject-level analysis as well. The B A_AQID has not established numerical limits for fugitive P:Xho/P:Xf s;however,projects that comply With the B_AAQXID B:XIPs to control fugitive P:Xho/P:Xf swoWd be considered to have less-than-significant impacts. City of South San Francisco 4.1-13 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Table 4.1-4 BAAQMD Operational Emissions Thresholds Criteria Pollutant Average Daily Emissions Ob/day) Maximum Annual Emissions(tons per year) ROG 54 10 NOx 54 10 PMio(exhaust only) 82 15 PM2.5(exhaust only) 54 10 PM10/PM2.5(fugitive dust) None None SOURCE: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update (May 2011). 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures This analysis assumes compliance with the 2007 HEIR mitigation measures. The 2007 HEIR measures were based on the 1999 B_ AQ:NID Guidelines measures for dust control. It should be noted that the 2011 B_ AQ:NID Guidelines have updated the recommended dust control measures. These updated measures are described and incorporated as mitigation for the project as detailed below. The following mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 IR to reduce construction related air quality impacts: 1111�.3-1(a) Implepleiat (0po z*ate dust control Pleasmei �ecoplplelided b), the BAA��l1D as outlined belm. The p,e eet cont/actor(s) shall comply //zth these dust eolimol .rt/ate,*ei. Ge/aentech shall imlude * eon.rtluetioln eontlacts the follov Z'/g l equh vplelitr or Pleasm er shov w to be equally eff etir e. • Corer all tlrvcks haulil, .roil, solid, alid other loose eon.rtlrletioli alid, demolition debl' fivpl the .rite, or require all such tnrvcks to //laintai/a at least 2 f et of fieeboxrr,l. • lf'titer all&%posed or di.rtun Iced.roil.run f r e.i in a tir e colivi lVction xvvas at least Mice drily. • Pare, 6�&), neater three tinlei daily, or 6�&), (nolitotiit) .roil.rtabilitiers oli all ulq�ared pan kill, an vas alid stggil,an eas. • Snr eel' daily )n ith v titer.or eepers) all par ed pankill,an vas alnd.&r,il?,areas. • Nolide daily cleali-ulp of//lud alid dint cm Z'ed olito pared stneetr fi'onl the sz*/e. • Enclose, corer, neater tnnzee daily or 6rpply lionto is.foil biladerr to e%posed stockpiler (,#rt, salad, etc.). • Limittaa#zie.peeds on ulapxxred marls to 15 p1ph. • Ilastall saladbggs or other emfl*ola eolatrol Pleasm es to pl er elat silt aulloff to ublie ma yr ays. • Replant r egetato/a i/a distnbed areas as qX*C ly as possible. • Install )),heel vushers for all etizsting taueks, or vash off the tiles or taaeks of all taueks and equi�nlelat leal i/,the'site. • I/astall/a z/ad ba eaks at the as indaa as .zde(i) of eonstarlctio/a av vas. • Su.�pend e calatio/a xxird, radilig aetility arhe/a /ai/a 1r (insta/atxneous ust.) e teed 25 nlph orera 30-//li1lute period or Pm e. • To the eNtelat pos.l7ble, limit the area slll fect to e cal atiola, gladly, xxiad other dust enelatil, eonstauctio/a acuity at a/1),one time. 4.1-14 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1111-1.3- Der'gliate a dust eonmol eoon,#Ii rtm All eon.rtnuetio i sites shall post i s a eon.�pieuous locatio i the rurule alid phone nuulber of a der grunted eon.rtnuetio i dust eolih l eoonliliator ))ho tali �e.po id to eomplai itr by su.pelidiil, dustpoducilig aetritie.i orlmoridilio additiolialperionnel or equipuleiat for ('lust eoatrol. IIIIIIIIIIIIII Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact 4.1-1 Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This would be a less- than-significant impact. 1ITC maintains an inventor- of population for the region and I)y county, the latest version ofNvliicli was published in 2008 (1ITC 2008). The 1ITC population estimates cite a 2035 Bad- Area population of 9,031,498.' The 2007 :NIEIR identified that Genentech employed approximately 6,658 employees in the East of 101 Area. With the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, the new development could increase the number of employees to approximately 13,319, or approximately 6,661 net new employees. As of December 31, 2011, Genentech employed 5,856 employees within the :NIEIR study area, and full build- out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in approximately 7,463 net new employees. The net increase of approximately 7,463 employees resulting from build-out of Genentecli's 2007 Master Plan would represent approximately 8 percent of the City's projected employment in the year 2020. Further, according to the City's current Housing Element, adopted in Febniary 2010, between 2000 and 2008, the population of Soutli San Francisco grew from 60,552 to 63,744, outpacing growth in San Mateo County as a whole but sliglitly lagging population increase in the Bay_area region. Looping to the future, ABAG predicts that Soutli San Francisco will reach a population of nearly 70,000 by 2020. However, although full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in new employees and thus new households within the region, the project does not propose development of any new residential uses and any increase would be negligible new population in the City as the project would not develop any new residential uses. 1ITC also maintains an inventor- of VNIT for the nine-count-Bay-Area region and bv county. For 2035, 1ITC data shows VNIT for the Bay Area to be 168,120,927 miles per day. Based upon the trip generation provided in the Genentecli HEIR Update Traffic Impact _analysis, the C.alEEllod model (l-)rovided in _appendix C [Air Quality- Emission Supporting Data]) estimated that full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a vehicle trip generation of 10,857 trips per weekday,which results in a yearly VNIT of 20,427,061. The addition of project-related VNIT represents approximately 0.0003 percent of the total anticipated VNIT growth in the time county Bay Area. The project's contribution to yMT would not exceed the regional VNIT projections and does not constitute a significant share of overall VNIT for the Bay Area according to 1ITC's VNIT inventory. s The Bay Area region includes San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,Kameda,Contra Costa,Solano,Napa,Sonoma, and:XIarin counties. City of South San Francisco 4.1-15 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Both the 2010 Clean _fir Plan and the 2005 Ozone Strategy emphasize the need for smart growth and a reduction of single automobile usage. The 2010 C_�P contains 55 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay- _area. _long with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source and transportation control measures, the 2010 CAP contains a number of new control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. Applicable to this project, and consistent with the 2010 Clean _fir Plan, Genentech has developed both a Stustainability Plan and a Transportation Demand Management Program (TD:N ) to reduce ever y and transportation requirements and emissions from both stationary- and mobile sources. Genentech's TD1I program provides amenities and incentives to encourage non-single-occupancy-veliicle transportation by employees and visitors. Genentech's TD1I policies and programs are outlined in the 2007 Master Plan. As reported in the 2010 Annual Report, Genentech's TD1I program, named gRide, provides a variety of flexible and convenient programs and services to get employees to and from work, as well as around campus. The objective of TDI programs is to reduce vehicle trips by incorporating project components that encourage increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Genentech has made public transit access a priority throtigh dramatic increases in GenertNis service, and continued shuttle services to Caltrain and BART stations. hey elements of Genentech's TD:NI program include City- ordinance required and extra measures, annual sur`-ev monitoring and triennial reporting. These measures also include a variety of infrastructure and incentive based measures that encourage all forms of alternative mode use such as carpools, vanpools, transit and shuttles, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. Other measures include an expansive commuter and internal shuttle program, a daily commute allowance subsidy program, a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program, preferential carpool parking, showers and bicycle facilities commuter incentives and a number of on-site amenities designed to support car-free employees. Although not a formal TD:NI plan measure, an important feature is the modest parking availability planned to discourage single occupancy vehicle (SOy� use. Genentech offers sixteen GenenBus routes, which include two Caltrain/BART routes; four San Francisco routes; six East Bay- routes; one Marro route; and three Peninsula/South Bay routes, and GenenBus ridership is over 2,800 rides per day. Additionally, Genentech recently introduced an intra- campus bike share program that provides more connectivity for employees, further encourages gRide participation, and supplements the shuttle system. Participation in alternate transit modes has increased over 25 percent since the program inception in 2006, and a surrey completed in October 2010 indicates that Genentech has been able to maintain the 35 percent alternative mode use attained for 2009 (Genentech 2011). Genentech currently markets its TD:NI through promotional programs and a comprehensive transportation intranet site. The Sustainability Plan was introduced with 2009 as the baseline and requires that each site throtighout the company develop an Energy Action Plan to contribute to the reduction of emissions from energy use at the site. Further, Genentech's Energy Action Plan would be consistent with the Energy and Climate Measures (E(.:NIs) described in the 2010 CAP. The efficiency measures proscribed in Genentech's 4.1-16 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Energy Action Plan are designed to reduce energy consumption and thereby reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants.' The TD1I programs and Energy _fiction Plan described alboye are consistent with the programs and policies included in the 2010 Clean Air Plan and the 2003 Ozone Strategy. The pro)ectwould continue to implement and conform to various transportation control and trip reduction measures that are consistent with the B_ AQ1ID's goals for reducing regional air pollutants. Tlerefore, based upon the B_ AQ1ID thresholds for planning level projects such as the 2007 Master Plan, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan and this impact would be less than significant. Threshold Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Impact 4.1-2 Construction activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would include excavation, grading, and construction activities which could result in emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the established thresholds. This would be a temporary but potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3-1(a) and MM4.3-1(b) as identified in the 2007 MEIR, and mitigation measures MM4.1-1(a) through MM4.1-2 would reduce this impact, but not to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Constnuction of individual new development projects with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would occur based upon Genentech's need for new office and R&D facilities, dependent on market demand. As such, there is no construction schedule in place for the development anticipated under the project. Constnuction emissions are dependent on the number of constniction and delivery vehicles operating, the length of time in operation, and the amount of soil that is disturbed on a daily basis. Without a known scledule or an anticipated annual or daily level of constriction, constriction related emissions cannot be accurately estimated. Individual construction projects implemented under full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be required to analyze the impacts from constniction activities. The B AAQ:NID CEQ A, Guidelines provide a detailed process for analyzing constriction related impacts,which are described below. The first step in determining the significance of constniction-related criteria air pollutants and precursors is to compare the attributes of the project with the applicable screening criteria listed in Chapter 3 of the B_ AQ1ID CEQA Guidelines. These screening criteria are as follows: 1. The project is below the applicable screening level size shown in Table 3-1of the B AAQ:NID CEQ_A, Guidelines (277 ksf for general office/239 ksf for general liglit industry or industrial park, which would include R&D, and for manufacturing);and 2. All Basic Constniction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction;and Refer to Section 4.2 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) for more details regarding Genentech's Energy Action Plan. City of South San Francisco 4.1-17 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 3. Constriction-related activities would not include any of the following: a. Demolition activities inconsistent with District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and 1lanufacturing; b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than tvo constriction phases (e.g., paring and building construction would occur simultaneously); c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development); d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions 1lodel [URBEIIIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity-. If all of the screening criteria are met, construction of the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality and no further analysis is required. If not, then the B AAQ:NID CEQ A, Guidelines recommend that construction emissions be quantified. Following quantification of project-generated constriction-related emissions, the total average daily emissions of each criteria pollutant and precursor should be compared with the applicable thresholds. Additionally, the B_ AQ:NID recommends that all the Basic Cons ilaiolr _Mitioatioli 11ealures be incorporated into the analysis and carried out by the project applicant. These Basic Consilaiol? _Mitioatioli 11ealures are hereby incorporated into this SMEIR as mitigation measures 1I1I-1.1-1(a) and:NB14.l-l(b) as follows: 1111�.1 1(a) Aior to z.ssuali e of a, idigopeimit for ilidil *dll rl oler eloppleiat p'e ecti ura�leita eia a a�le� the 2007 aster Mali, Gelrelmech shall peselit to the City of,South ,Sall F7Clntlseo Plalmil, Depar tulelit d&iiled a&n Iysis of the derelopnlelitpr jeet'.s eonstrrletioli related, impacts. This a&r Iyii.i shall be eon.rstelit»ith the methodology as outlined ili the BAA011D'.s 2011 CE(')A Guidelines. Aw4. Genentech alid its eonstruetioli contractor shall inplenlelit the 6��P piate BAA011D BCrsie Convi'l do/r -Mitioatioli 11ealures. Gelientech shall include ili eonstruetioli contras the follonil, requir enlelits: • All e\posed surfaces (e.,.,par kl*l, �vvrs, s ioir, ar vas, soil piles, , raded ar vas, gild 1110ared access r ads) shall be n ato ed m v times Per dory. • All haul trucks trzrn.Vortil,soil, salid, or other loose nlaterz�rl off-site shall be eoreledl ■ All riS7ble nlud or dirt track-out olito a(lacelit public marls shall be renlored usilig )retponer l aeuunl street sn eepers at least once per dory. The use of dr y on er sn eepiq Z*S p'ohibitedl ■ All r ehicle.pCds oli 1110ar ed r ads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All madnqys, driren rys, glad sidewalks to be purred shall be Completed as soon as posSible. Buildilig pads shall be laid as soon as posSible gfter yradil, unless seedil, or soil biladers ar v used. • Idliq times shall be nliiainli-ed either by equi�nlelit off n hell riot ili use or reduCill, the nlaNiNIunl idlilio time to 5 nlilautes (ors required by the Ca iforliz'a ahborrae to i s Control nleasme Title 13, ,SeCtioli 248 5 of Ca iforraiCr Code of Regulations C:(,R). Clear 'sz*g&?ge shall bepolidea forColivil bola nw kers at all access poilits. 4.1-18 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR • All eonstrrletioli equi�Plelit shall be Plaintained alid properly tuned ira aeeor'lanee vith Plalaufretvrer'.s .V)et,ifzcations. All equipPlelit shall be checked by a eertifed 1iS7ble eP1isS7011s elaluator. • Post a publicly riS7ble .r,ra »zth the telephone nuulber alid persoli to contact at the lead goelat'y re,ar'lil, dust eomplailits. Thispersola shall re. oral xrad take cor mire aetiola vithila 48 hour's. The Air Distliet'.s phone nuulber shall also be risible to ensure compliance v ith applicable r e,ulation.s. If it is determined that with implementation of mitigation measure :NB14.1-1(b), that daily- average emissions of constriction-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would not exceed any of the thresholds, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality-. If, after implementation of mitigation measure 11111.1-1(b), that daily- average emissions of constriction-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed arty applicable thresholds, the project would result in a significant impact to air quality- and would require additional mitigation measures for emission reductions. Therefore, if it is determined that future individual development projects were to exceed any constriction related threshold for criteria pollutant established in this SMEIR, mitigation measure MM4.4-2 would be implemented and would include the following: 1111-x.1-2 Prior to issuance of a lor adilio po lit, if the detailed analysis of air ilidilidual derelopPlelit p'e eet de/oWines that e teed the eonstruetioli-related threshold established ira this SMEIR after iulpleulentatio i of the Plit7gatioli Pleasures identified irr AW4.1 1(b), Gelaelmech shall implePlelit one or Ploy e of the follov il?, Pleasures ())hiClr it shall choose) as neeessar y to bring the impact to bolo)),the threshold • All e\posed surf aces shall be v ato ed at a fi equela�y adequate to Plaintaira PliraiPluPl soil Ploistme of 12 pereelat Moisture contelit uxta be rerifred by lab samples or Ploistme p be. • All eNcalatioli, gladly, alidlor dePlolitioli actilities shall be su.�pelided )rheli are qge »irad peeds e teed 20 mph. • lFilid breaks (e.,., trees,f nees) shall be installed oli the »ilidvar'1 side() of actirely disturbed areas of eonstrrletioli. lf"ilid breaks should hare at N1�1NiPluPl 50 po'celrt airpol'osity. • f 1'e,etatir e omlllid corer (e.,., f rst, ermilratil, lratir e, rass seed) shall be planted ira disturbed areas as soon as pos.7ble and v atered 6��pv riately until r e,etatioli is established. ■ The siPlultaneous oeeur7enee of eNcxlatioll, radillg, eonstrrletiolr actirities oli the saPle area at any one tiPle shall be liPlited. Actilities shall be phased to reduce the aPlount of disturbed sm frees at alay one tiPle. ■ All trrvcks alid equi�Plelrt, intludil?,theirthes, shall be mashed offriorto lealill, the site. ■ Site accesses to a distance of 100 f et f'oPl the pared read shall be treated rrith a 6- to 12411th compacted layer of)rood clams, Plulclr, or,grarel. • Saradb r,s or other em siora eoratr l Pleasures shall be installed torererat silt rrvraoff toublie m adrr ays fi'oPl sites v ith a slopes eater thala 1 pereelat • llilaiPlitiilz,the idlili, tiPle of dieselporrered eonstrrletioli equ�Plelit to 2 Plilautes. • The p'e eet shall der clop a plali dePlonstratil, that the off-read equi�Plelat (Plor e thala 50 horseporrer) to be used ira the eonstruetioli pr'fect (i.e., orrlied, leased, alid subcontractor r ehicles) rrould achier e a p ject rr ide fleet-carergoe 20 percelit NO-,-- r edlaiolr alid 4 5 po relit PM r eductioli compared to the Plost r ecelit ARB fleet ar er urge. Acceptable options for r edutill, City of South San Francisco 4.1-19 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR euli.ssiou.s include the use of late Model eligiues, lou euli.ssiou diesel products, alteriratire fuels, eligiue rem frt telruology, after-treatuleut products, add-ou del ices .suclr as particulate flters, and/or other optious as such becoyne alailable. • Use lo)), VOC (i.e., ROG) coatil,.s beyoud the local r equireuleuts (i.e., Re,ulatiou 8, Rule 3: Ar'l)itectlral Coatil,.). • Requirilig that all cou.structiou equipuleut, diesel trucks, aud,geuenmors be equipped ufith Best Al ailable Coutr of Teclruology for euli.ssiou reductiou.s of NO-,--and P11. • Requirilig all contractors use equipuleut that Meets CARB'.s ulo.st receut cei ifrcatiou .staudar'l _for off read heal y duty diesel el giues. As required by 11114.1-1(a), the detailed constriction related air quality impact analysis would include a quantification of project-generated constriction-related emissions in accordance with the B_ AQ1fD- recommended methods, and a comparison of the total average daily- amount of mitigated (with implementation of mitigation measures identified in MM4.1-2) criteria air pollutants and precursors with the applicable thresholds. If the analysis shows that with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.1-2 all construction-related criteria air pollutants and precursors would be reduced to levels below the applicable thresholds, the impact to air quality would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. If mitigated levels of arty criteria air pollutant or precursor still exceed the applicable thresholds, the impact to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. As quantification of constriction related emissions is not possible in this SMEIR, it is assumed that mitigation measures MM4.1-1(b) and 11114.1-2 would reduce constriction-related emissions; however, it is possible that constriction-related emissions would still exceed the thresholds establislied in this SMEIR. Therefore, since constniction-related emissions could not be quantified, there is no guarantee that construction-related emissions would not exceed the applicable thresholds despite the imposition of feasible mitigation. _accordingly, this impact is conservatively considered to be significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.1-3 Operation activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Stationary- and area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating de-ices, the operation of diesel-powered emergency generators, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor veliicles traveling to and from the project study area. The analysis of daily- operational emissions was prepared utilizing the GalEElfod computer model recommended by the BAAQIID and the project daily motor veliicle trip generation data for total daily- trips contained in the traffic impact analysis (see _appendix C). The GalEEllod computer model is a program that estimates air pollution emissions in pounds per day or tons per year for various land uses, area sources, constriction projects, and project operations. 4.1-20 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR As identified in the 2007 HEIR, the 2007 Master Plan incorporated certain features in its design that would help reduce the operational emissions that would otherwise be generated. These design features would encourage pedestrian activity,which would reduce emissions from the operation of motor vehicles by project employees. These features include the following: • Creation of a safe and accessible pedestrian environment throt>gh the use of signage, lighting, and crossing treatments such as high-visibility striping • Creating a continuous off-street pedestrian connection that links all cluadrants of the Genentech Campus • Supporting pedestrian movement with frequent circuits of the shuttle bus and well-placed and designed bus shelters • Use of landscaping features such as tree-spacing The project would implement a substantial Traffic Demand Management (TD:N ) program in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the project. The TD:Nf reductions utilized in this analysis assume a 25 percent reduction in vehicle trips, consistent with the East of 101 traffic study-. The vehicle trips associated with the TD1f were provided as project-specific trip rates and, therefore, are presented in the CalEElfod model as part of the emissions estimate. Operational emissions are identified in Table 4.1-5 (Operational Emissions). As shown, operational emissions would result in significant impacts for ROG and N()s. Table Operational Emissions ROG NOx PMro* PMza* Daily Average Emissions(lb/day) Area 75.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 1.66 15.13 0.00 0.00 Mobile 56.64 105.65 3.81 3.64 Total 133.46 120.78 3.81 3.64 Daily Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Significant? Yes Yes No No Maximum Annual Emissions(Tons per year) Area 13.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.30 2.76 0.00 0.00 Mobile 7.10 13.89 0.52 0.50 Total 21.12 16.65 0.52 0.50 Annual Thresholds 10 10 15 10 Significant? Yes Yes No No SOURCE: Atkins(201 1) (calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C). x Emissions from exhaust only. City of South San Francisco 4.1-21 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR _although TD1I and design features have been incorporated into the 2007 Master Plan, emissions would still exceed the identified thresholds of significance. _�s there is no quantifiable and feasible mitigation to further reduce these emissions, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Threshold Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Impact 4.1-4 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The project, in combination with related projects within the City, would result in a cumulatively significant impact for ROG and NOS since these exceed the B_ AQ1ID's thresholds and are considered significant for the project. This is considered cumulatively- significant according to B_ AQ1ID's significance thresholds when a project exceeds the B_ AQ1ID's project mass emission threshold for criteria air pollutants.10 Because no feasible mitigation has been identified, the impact for ROG and NOS is, therefore, significant and unavoidable. Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 4.1-5 Implementation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This would be a less-than-significant impact. The Study Area is located east of US 101 and currently- contains office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking strictures. The project will allow for those land uses to continue and expand as identified in the 2007 Master Plan. The B_ AQ1ID defines sensitive receptors as facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or others who are especially- sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. The SMEIR Study Area is not zoned for residential use, as sucli the only- identified sensitive receptor within the SMEIR Stlidv Area would be the existing Genentech Child Care Center located along Allerton avenue. N\Iiile the build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would increase tnick trips and create new sources of emissions from proposed laboratories, these increases would not be expected to increase T_ C. emissions to hazardous levels. _additionally, the t�pical sources of T_ C. emissions associated with research and development facilities, such as lalbor< tort' fume hoods, boilers, effiviene oxide sterilization, and cliemical storage tanks are regilated I)y the B_ AQ1ID and otlier regilatory agencies. _activities that could create 10 B_A AQ�,ID CEQ A Guidelines,p. 2-3. 4.1-22 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR biohazardous aerosols are conducted in biosafety cabinets, which filter all released air to remove biohazardous materials. Biosafetv cabinets are tested annually- in accordance with regulatory requirements. It is not anticipated that new manufacturing uses would be developed with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, as Genentech has already- reached capacity for these uses under the 2007 Master Plan. Genentech currently- does not anticipate adding any new back-up generators, utility- plants, or other T AC emission sources within 300 feet of the Genentech Child Care Center. The 2011 B AQ:NID CEQ A, Guidelines recommended that general and area plans establish special overlay zones of at least 300 feet on each side of all freeways and high-volume roadways and special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of T_ C.s, and that the plans identify goals, policies, and oNectives to minimize potentially adverse impacts. To date, the City- has not established such zones within the Stlidv _area. Further, the B_ AQ:NID recommends that sensitive uses, such as the Genentech Child Care Center be located at least 300 feet from high-volume roadways. The B_ AQ1ID defines high-volume roadways as those that would result in excess of 10,000 vehicle trips per-dap. Currently, Allerton venue averages approximately 3,300 vehicles per day. With full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, Allerton venue would average approximately 3,060 vehicles per dap, which is below the B_ AQ1ID threshold for sensitive receptors. The next closest roadway is Grandview Boulevard, located approximately- 830 feet to the west, and therefore outside of the B_ AQ:NID's recommended zone for the siting of sensitive receptors. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. In addition, B_ AQ1ID has not revised its thresholds for local CO emissions affecting sensitive receptors. Accordingly, the conclusions set forth in the 2007 MEIR remain valid and no further analysis is required. 4.1 .6 Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As discussed above, the 2010 Clean _fir Plan is based on ABAG's projections. Under the B_ AQ1ID methodology, for consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, a project or plan must demonstrate that the population or VSIT assumptions contained in the Clean Air Plan would not be exceeded and that the project or plan implements both a Sustainability Plan and a TD1I as applicable. _according to the City's current Housing Element, adopted in February 2010, between 2000 and 2008, the population of South San Francisco grew from 60,332 to 63,711, outpacing growth in San Mateo County as a whole but slightly lagging population increase in the Bay Area region. Looping to the future, ABAG predicts that South San Francisco will reach a population of nearly 70,000 bv 2020. N\11le build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a net increase of approximately 7,463 employees, the increase in employees would represent only 10 percent of the City's anticipated population growth. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Regional Comprehensive Plan projections the City's total employment number is anticipated to increase to 48,290 by 2020. The net increase of approximately 7,463 employees resulting from build-out of Genentech's 2007 Master Plan would represent approximately 13 percent of the City's projected employment in the year 2020, while total daily trips would represent less than 0.0003 percent of regional trips. As such, the project would not make a City of South San Francisco 4.1-23 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR cumulatively considerable contribution. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? As indicated under Impact 4.1-4, emissions from operational activities are anticipated to exceed the operational threshold for ROG and NO, which are precursors to ozone, for which the Basin is nonattainment. Because emissions from the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be significant and unavoidable on a project level this is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact. Because operation of land uses with the Study Area would exceed the thresholds established by the BAAQ1ID, and all exceedances of project-level thresholds inhibit the Basin's ability to reach attainment, the exceedances would make a cumulatively considerable contribution. Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? DPNI would be emitted from diesel-powered delivery trucks traveling to and from the project site. To address DP1I and other T_ C. emissions, the California _FRB published an Air alid L alul Use Halo book: A Coululunity Health Pev peetir e (April 2005) as an "informational guide" to prioritize the important sources of T ACs and reduce exposures to proximate populations. The B AAQ:NID CEQ A Guidelines utilizes the California ARB guide in determining the siting of new sensitive uses or emitters of DPNI or other T ACs. Among the important sources of DPI it identifies are distribution centers, warehouses and other facilities that accommodate 100 or more large diesel tnicks per dad-, and it recommends that no new residential uses be located within 1,000 feet of such facilities (or conversely- that no new large sources of DP1I be located near existing residential uses). The proposed development would not represent these uses, and typically- only- a fraction of delivery tnicks would be diesel-powered. Furthermore, the MEIR Study Area is not zoned for residential use, as described in Chapter 3 (Project Description). There are no residential uses or other sensitive receptors located within 500 feet of significant sources of TACs. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of DPI. As such, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution. 4.1 .7 References Atkins. 2012. Gelielmech lIEIR t,pdrteTrzrffeLulpactA&Iyri.r,January. Bad-Area_fir Quality Management District (B_ AQ1ID). 1997. 1997 Bq),Arva Cleali Air Plali. 2001. Rer i.i e 1 B ry Ar e r Otione Attailaulelit Maly for 1 Hour Otione Att riraulerat,S t rra 1 rr�. 2010. Bury Area Cleali Air Mali. 2011. Crliforiai�r Elarir,olaulelmal Colim lAetAirQllality Guidelines. Brady and_associates. 1994. East of 101 Arva Mali, adopted 1994. California_fir Resources Board (California_FRB). 2005.Air(41ality alid Lalid Use Haan book:A Coululu city, Health Pev peetir e, April. 4.1-24 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR n.d. Top -1 1leasurements and Days _above the Standard. littp://Nv�v�v.<rb.c .goV/ad<m/topfotir/topfotirdisplay.plip (accessed J<nu<iry 19, 2012). Dyett&Bhatia. 1999. City of,Vouth,Va i Fanei.reo Gelmial Mara, adopted October. Genentech. 2011. Geraeratech Annual Repwt: Geraeratech Facilities Abster Plana,April. Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( ITC.). 2008. TaarelForecays Data,Vuplplaay: Taan.Voatatiora 2035 Plan for the San FaanaiSco Bay Aa ea, December. littp://Nv�v�v.mtc.ca.gov/pl<annitig/2035_pl<an/Stipplement<ary/T2035- Tr,,iv el_Forecast_D<at<a_Summ<ary.pdf(accessed January- 20, 2012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A). 1999.Air Pollution and Health Risk. City of South San Francisco 4.1-25 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR _ 4.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.2.1 Background At the time the 2007 HEIR was certified, a quantitative evahiation of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts was not required under CEQA. In 2010, the (.E(_)-A, Guidelines were amended, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.05, to address the anal ysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Because the 2007 HEIR did not address greenhouse gas emissions, these potential impacts are being evaluated in this SMEIR. In addition, as discussed below, since certification of the 2007 HEIR, B__AQ1ID has released new B_ AQ1ID CEQ-A, Guidelines11 that include a recommended approach to analyzing GHG emissions. Although these Guidelines were recently invalidated by the Alameda Superior Court, the City- of South San Francisco believes they are supported by substantial evidence and employs portions of the B_ AQ1fD CEQA Guidelines in the analysis that follows (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c), which says, "when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency- may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency- to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence"). 4.2.2 Introduction This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects on greenhouse gas emissions from implementation of the 2007 Master Plan. No comment letters addressing greenhouse gas emissions were received in response to the notice of preparation (NOP) circulated in advance of this SMEIR. This section is based on technical information compiled by the California Energy Commission (CEC), California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEP A), California ARB, B AAQ:NID, or other local agencies. Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.2.6 (References). 4.2.3 Environmental Setting The project site is located within the East of 101 _area. Genentech's existing South San Francisco Central Campus (the Campus) is bounded by the San Francisco Bay- in the north and east and is connected by Ouster Point /Forbes Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of the Campus. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bad-Area _fir Basin (SFBAB),which derives its name from the surrounding mountains that confine the movement of air and the pollutants it contains. This area includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, 1larin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, the western half of Solano, and the southern half of Sonoma counties. The regional climate within the SFBAB is considered semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime on-shore breezes, and moderate liumidity. Climate change within the Basin is ii Bad area fir Quality Management District, California Emironmental Control Act Air 011 alilt,Guidelines(May 2011). City of South San Francisco 4.2-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR influenced bv a wide range of emission sources, such as utility-usage, hear)-veliicular traffic, industry, and meteorole<g . IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Climate Change Background Parts of the Eartli's atmosphere act as an insulating blanket trapping sufficient solar energy to beep the global average temperature in a suitable range. The "blanket" is a collection of atmospheric gases called "greenhouse gases" based on the idea that these gases trap heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse. These gases, mainly-water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO), methane ((.H,), nitrous oxide (N,O), ozone and clilorofluorocarbons (CF('.$), all act as effective global insulators, reflecting risible liglit and infrared radiation back to eartli. Human activities, such as producing electricity- and dri�-ing internal combustion vehicles, have contributed to the elevated concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. This in turn is causing the Eartli's temperature to rise. A warmer Earth may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, smaller Polar ice caps, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants,wildlife, and humans. The relationships of water vapor and ozone as GHGs are poorly understood. It is unclear how much water vapor acts as a GHG. The uncertainty- is due to the fact that water vapor can also produce cloud corer,which reflects sunliglit away-from Earth and can counteract its effect as a GHG. _also,water vapor tends to increase as the Eartli warms, so it is not well understood wlietlier the increase in water vapor is contributing to, or rather a result of, climate change. Ozone tends to break down in the presence of solar radiation but is not understood well enotigli for evaluation. For these reasons, methodologies approved by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPC(.), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the California _FRB focus on CO, N,(), CH,, and CFCs. The following provides a brief description of each of these GHGs. Carbon Dioxide. The natural production and absorption of CO, occurs through the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and as a result of otlier chemical reactions, such as those required to manufacture cement. Globally, the largest source of CO, emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses lead to CO, emissions, such as mineral or metal production,and the use of petroleum-based products. CO, is removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Natural sources of CO, occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO, are removed by- oceans and growing plants and are emitted back into the atmosphere tlirotigli natural processes. N\Iien in balance, total CO, emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s human activities, including burning of oil, coal, and gas and deforestation, had increased CO, concentrations in the atmosphere by 35 percent as of 2005. Methane. CH4 is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil, from livestock and otlier agricultural practices, and from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. It is estimated that 4.2-2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 60 percent of global CH} emissions are related to human activities. Natural sources of CH} include wetlands, gas livdrates,1' permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, nonwetland soils, and wildfires. CH, emission levels from a particular source can vary signific<ntly from one country or region to another. These variances depend on mangy- factors, such as climate, industrial and agricultural production characteristics, ever y types and usage, and waste management practices. For example, temperature and moisture have a significant effect on the anaerobic digestion process, which is one of the key- biological processes resulting in CH4 emissions from both human and natural sources. Also, the implementation of teclinologies to capture and utilize CH, from sources such as landfills, coal mines, and manure management systems affects the emission levels from these sources. Nitrous Oxide. Concentrations of NJ) also began to rise at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution reaching 314 parts per billion (l-)plb) by 1998. Microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen, produce nitrous oxide. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production,and vehicle emissions) also contribute to the atmospheric load of N,O. Chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs have no natural source, but were synthesized for uses as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Since their creation in 1928, the concentrations of CFCs in the atmosphere have been rising. Due to the discover- that they are able to destroy- stratosplieric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken, and levels of the major CFCs are now remaining static or are declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 rears. Since CFCs are also a GHG, along with such other long- lived synthesized gases as CF, (carl)ontetr< fluoride) and SF6 (sulfurliexafluoride), they- are of concern. _mother set of synthesized compounds called HFCs (liydrofluorocarlbons) are also considered GHGs, though tliev are less stable in the atmosphere and therefore have a shorter lifetime and less of an impact. CFCs, CF,, SF6 and HFCs have been banned and are no longer available. Tlierefore, these GHGs are not included further in this analysis. IIIIIIIIIIIIII Potential Effects of Global Climate Change Climate change could have a number of adverse effects. Althougli these effects would have global consequences, in most cases they would not disproportionately affect and one site or activit<. In otlier words, mangy- of the effects of climate change are not site specific. Emission of GHGs would contribute to the changes in the global climate,which would in turn, have a number of pliysical and environmental effects. A number of general effects are discussed below. However, because the extent to which climate change will occur and the effects to individual areas are undefined due to uncertainties in climate change researcli, the effects of climate change on the project site is speculative and will not be discussed furtlier in this analysis. _additionally, in Ballolia Vetlalidr L alid Tnut r. City of Los Aligeles, (2d Dist., Nov. 9, 2011) Cal.App.T", the Court reiterated established precedent that an "EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project." As such, the effects of climate change described below are not examined in this SMEIR. 12 Gas hydrates are crystalline solids that consist of a gas molecule,usually methane,surrounded by a"cage"of water molecules. City of South San Francisco 4.2-3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Sea Level Rise and Flooding. The California Climate Change Center (CCCC) predicts that sea level in California would rise between 10.9 to 71.6 centimeters (cm) (0.36 to 2.3 feet) above existing mean sea level (msl) by 2099 as a result of climate change.13 Because the project area is at a low elevation (approximately at 8 to 100 feet above mean sea level) and is adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, natural and climate change-accelerated sea level rise could result in increased flood risks within the next 50 to 100 years. _additionally, alterations in the flow regime and subsequent flood potential could also occur from effects of climate change on local and regional precipitation patterns. In the future, precipitation events are predicted to vary in terms of timing, intensity and volume according to manv climate change models. Extreme storm events may occur with greater frecuency." The effect on peak runoff is not known because most climate change models have not used a temporal (or spatial) scale necessary to identify effects on peak flows, and existing precipitation/runoff models for assessing the effects of climate change do not vet adequately predict rainfall/rnof scenarios." Changes in rainfall and rnof could affect flows in surface water bodies, causing increased flooding and runoff to the storm drain system. Water Supply. California Health and Safety- Code Section 38501(x) recognizes that climate change "poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California," and notes, "the potential adverse impacts of [climate change] include ... reduction in the quality- and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack." As most of the state, including the South San Francisco depends on surface water supplies originating in the Sierra Nevada, this water supply reduction is a concern. Most of the scientific models addressing climate change show that the primary effect on California's climate would be a reduced snow pack and a shift in stream-flow seasonality-. A higher percentage of the winter precipitation in the mountains would likely fall as rain rather than as snow in some locations, hereby reducing the overall snowpack. Further, as temperatures rise, snowmelt is expected to occur earlier in the year resulting in peak runoff that would likely come a month or so earlier. The end result of this would be that the state may not have sufficient surface storage to capture the resulting early runoff and so, absent constnuction of additional water storage projects, a portion of the current supplies would be lost to the oceans, rather than be available for use in the state's water delivery-systems. Water Quality. Climate change could have adverse effects on water quality,which would, in turn, affect the beneficial uses (habitat, water supply, etc.) of surface water bodies and groundwater. The changes in precipitation discussed above could result in increased sedimentation, higher concentration of pollutants, 13 California Climate Change Center, Cayan,D.,P.Bromirski,I-.Hayhoe,:Xf.Tyree,:Xf.Dettinger,and R. Flick,llr iecfiqo Future Sea Letel•Table 3 Projected global sea letel rise (SLR) (cm)for the SRES AI fi,A2,and B 9 greenhouse gas emission scenarios. SLR forA2 and BI scenarios is estimated by combining oa�at recent global climate change model simalations pith L4G'K.0-Proieetions for the ice melt component_ �VLR estimates forAl fz estimated l-ow 1L4GICC based on A2 temperature char es scaled accol-diqo to those ill AI fi,A Report from the California Clilnate Change Center CEC-X00-200 -2002-SF (2006),p. 19. 14 U.S.Environmental Protection agency,Climate Change Indicators in the United States,Weather and Climate, www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html (accessed February 2012). Anderson, Chapter 6: Climate Change Impacts on Flood Management,in California Department of Water Resources,P7Qgoress on Incwpo1-atzl2o Climate C,hagoe Into Plannigo and-Alanggoement of C,ahf nzia's 111'ater Resources,Technical Memorandum Report(2006),pp. 6-22 and 6-27. 4.2-4 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR higher dissolved oxygen levels, increased temperatures, and an increase in the amount of runoff constituents reaching surface water bodies. Sea level rise, discussed above, could result in the encroachment of saline water into freshwater bodies." Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Climate change is expected to have effects on diverse types of ecosystems, from alpine to deep sea habitat. As temperatures and precipitation change, seasonal shifts in vegetation would occur; this could affect the distribution of associated flora and fauna species. As the range of species shifts, habitat fragmentation could occur, with acute impacts on the distribution of certain sensitive species! The IPCC states that "20 percent to 30 percent of species assessed may be at risk of extinction from climate change impacts within this century- if global mean temperatures exceed 2 to 3°C (3.6 to 5.-1°F) relative to pre-industrial levels.i14 Shifts in existing biomes could also mare ecosystems N-rulnerable to invasive species encroachment. Wildfires, which are an important control mechanism in many ecosystems, may become more severe and more frequent, making it difficult for native plant species to repeatedly re-germinate. In general terms, climate change is expected to put a number of stressors on ecosystems,with potentially substantial effects on biodiversitV. Human Health Impacts. Climate change may also increase the risk of vector-borne infectious diseases, particularly those found in tropical areas and spread by insects malaria, dertg ue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Cholera, which is associated with algal blooms, could also increase. Wliile these health impacts would largely affect tropical areas in other parts of the world, effects could also be felt in California. Warming of the atmosphere would be expected to increase smog and particulate pollution, which could adversely affect individuals with heart and respirator problems, such as astlima. Extreme heat events would also be expected to occur with more frequency, and could adversely affect the elderly, children, and the homeless. Finally, the water supply impacts and seasonal temperature variations expected as a result of climate change could affect the viability of existing agricultural operations, making the food supply more vtilnerable." IIIIIIIIIIIIII Potential Effects of Human Activity on Climate Change The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, especially for the generation of electricity- and powering of motor veliicles, has led to substantial increases in CO, emissions (and thus substantial increases in 16 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007:Impacts,Ada0tation,and I'nlnelwbilily Contribution of Ill'orking Grorto II to the Third Assessment deport of the Interpol ennmental Panel on Climate Chagw,Pair,Martin L.,Canziani, Osvaldo F.,Palutikof,lean P.,van der Linden,Paul j.,and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.) (Cambridge,United hingdom: Cambridge University Press,200 , 1,000 pp. F U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Ecosystems Impacts &adaptation (2012) Nv�v�v.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/eco.htnl (accessed June 2012). is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007:Impacts,Adaptation,and I'nlnelwbilily,. Contribution of Ill'ol-kirz Gnorp II to the Third Assessweat&port of the Later otennmel&d Panel on Climate Chaqoe,Parry,1lartin L.,Csuiziarli, Osvaldo F.,Palutikof,Jean P.,van der Linden,Paul j.,and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.) (Cambridge,United hingdom: Cambridge University Press,200 , 1,000 pp. 19 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007:Impacts,Adaptation,and I'nlnelwbilily,. Contribution o_f Ill'orking Group II to the Third Assessment deport of the Interpol ennmental Panel on Climate Chagw,Parr,Martin L.,Canziani, Osvaldo F.,Palutikof,Jean P.,van der Linden,Paul J.,and Hanson,Clair E. (eds.) (Cambridge,United hingdom: Cambridge University Press,200 , 1,000 pp. City of South San Francisco 4.2-5 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR atmospheric concentrations). In 1994, atmospheric CO, concentrations«%ere found to have increased by nearly 30 percent above pre-industrial (c. 1860) concentrations. The effect eacli GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its emissions and its global warming potential (GN\T), and is expressed as a function of how mucli warming; would be caused bv the same mass of CO,. Tlius, GHG emissions are tv p'cally measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO, equivalents (CO�e),and are often expressed in metric tons (AIT ('.O,e) or millions of metric tons of CO, equivalents (:NL\IT CO,e). • Global Emissions. Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were nearly 30 billion tons of CO,e per year (including both ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excluding emissions from land-use changes).'' In 2009, worldwide emissions of GHGs are at 30.3 billion tons of CO,e, ofwliicli the United States accounted for about 22 percent'' • U.S. Emissions. In 2004, the United States emitted 7.2 billion tons of CO�e. Of the four major sectors nationwide residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation transportation accounts for the highest percentage of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to 40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. In 2009, the United States emitted 6.6 billion tons of CO�e with the electric power industry accounting for the highest emitter of GHGs, approximately- 33 percent and transportation and industry- as the second and third liigliest accounting approximately 27 and 20 percent respectively. • State of California Emissions. In 2004, California emitted approximately 483 million tons of CO�e or about 6 percent of the U.S. emissions. This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of California compared to other states. By contrast, California has one of the fourth lowest per-capita GHG emission rates in the country, due to the success of its ever y-efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments that have lowered the state's GHG emissions rate of growth I)y more than half of what it would have been otherwise. _mother factor that has reduced California's fuel use and GHG emissions is its mild climate compared to that of mart- otlier states. In 2008, California's GHG emissions were approximately-478 1I1IT CO,e, generally attributed to the reduced travel, and therefore, transportation of emissions.' > Transportation is the source of approximately 37 percent of the state's GHG emissions, followed I)y electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 24 percent, and industrial sources at 19 percent. Residential and commercial sources account for 9 percent, while agriculture, waste, liigli GN\T compounds, and forestry account for 5.9, 3.3, 1.4, and 0.04 percent, respectiVely.4 • City of South San Francisco Emissions. The 2005 GHG emissions inventory for the City of Soutli San Francisco reflects all the ever y used and waste produced within the City-. Total emissions equaled approximately 526,766 metric tons CO�e. Vehicle emissions represent 20 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,S�m of Annex I�rn�i�'on Annex I Coy ntries l�ithout Coy rating Land-ILTs,Land-ILTs Chagoe and Forestry (LLLLTCF),Pre define O retzes:GHG totrl zthont LLLUCF(g a ae °I P retie.,) (Bonn, Germany,200 ,http:/%unfccc.int/ghg_emissions—data/predefined—queries/items/3814.php (accessed February 2012). '-i U.S.Environmental Protection agency,Climate Change Indicators in the United States.Feather and Climate, www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html (accessed February 2012). U.S.Environmental Protection agency,Climate Change Indicators in the United States.Feather and Climate, www.epa.gov/chmatechange/science/recentpsc.html(accessed February 2012). '-' California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data 2002-2008 (\fay 12,2010). 24 California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data 2002-2008 (\fay 12,2010). 4.2-6 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR approximately- 46 percent of emissions while commercial/industrial, residential and solid waste represent 33, 13, and 6 percent, respectivelp.2° ■ Genentech Emissions. In 2007 total GHG emissions from CotlntrCrwide Genentech operations equaled 190,718 metric tons CO,e, and had increased to 209,910 metric tons C(),e by 2009. Operational efficiency features implemented by Genentech saw a reduction in reported greenhouse gas emissions to 190,166 metric tons CO,e in 2010. Of the 2010 emissions the majorit< (�52 percent) were associated with electricit< usage while the remaining emissions were associated with stationary- combustion, vehicle fleet operation, and emissions of refrigerants and process gasses at approximately- 35, 12, and 1 percent, respectively-. 111 2004, the South San Francisco Genentech site emitted 76,740 metric tons CO,e from its operational activities.26 Various aspects of constricting, operating, and eventually- discontinuing the use of industrial and commercial development will result in GHG emissions. Operational GHG emissions result from energy use associated with heating, lighting, and powering buildings (typically throtigli natural gas and electricity- consumption), pumping and processing water (which consumes electricity-), as well as fuel used for transportation and decomposition of waste associated with building occupants. New development can also create GHG emissions in its constriction and demolition phases in connection with the use of fuels in constriction equipment, creation and decomposition of building materials, vegetation clearing, and other activities. However, it is noted that new development does not necessarily create entirely new GHG emissions. Occupants of new buildings are often relocating and shifting their operational-phase emissions from other locations. 4.2.4 Regulatory Framework Global climate change is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies as well as national and international scientific and governmental conventions and programs. These agencies work jointly- and individually to understand and regulate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate change through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-- maling, education, and a variety- of programs. The significant agencies, conventions, and programs focused on global climate change are discussed below. The 2007 HEIR did not address global climate change or GHG emissions; therefore, the information below is an update to the 2007 :NIEIR. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII International/Federal International Protocols The United States participated in the United Nations Framework; Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC('.) (signed on llarcli 21, 1994). The Kyoto Protocol was the first treaty- made under the UNFCC('. on December 1, 1997, and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol were met, global GHG emissions could have been reduced by an estimated 5 percent from 1990 levels during the first -s City of South San Francisco,Zolziqo Ordinance Update(December 17,2009). 26 Genentech,Annaa1&port 2011:Genentech Facilities Ten YearJlasterPlan(May 2011). City of South San Francisco 4.2-7 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR commitment period of 2008-2012. The United States has not ratified the Protocol and is not bound by the Protocol's commitments. Representatives from 170 countries met in Copenhagen in December 2009 to ratify an updated UNFCCC agreement (Copenhagen accord). The Copenhagen accord, a voluntary agreement between the United States, China, India, and Brazil, recognizes the need to beep global temperature rise to below 2°C and obligates signatories to establish measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare to provide help to poorer countries in adapting to Climate Change. The Copenhagen accord is a nonbinding agreement. Representatives from 194 United Nations member states, including business leaders and nongovernment organizations, met in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-16). In all, approximately- 12,000 participants met to wort; out the language and reduction targets of a new agreement. The result was the Cancun_agreements, a vohuitary agreement similar to the Copenhagen accord, but with broader UN member nation support. The Cancun Agreements set the stage for the next year's climate conference in Durban, South Africa. The kev elements of the Cancun agreements are as follows: • Countries agree to keep temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and developed countries are urged to make more aggressive emission cut pledges. • A $30 billion package ("fast-start financing") for 2012 to aid nations taking immediate action to adapt to global warming. • The creation of a "Global Climate Fund" that will provide financing of$100 million annually for longer-term adaptation and mitigation measures in developing countries (although where this aid will come from is still unresolved). The World Bank was designated as its interim trustee. • The creation of the forestry program, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation,which provides compensation for the preservation of tropical forests in developing countries. • Specific language and a formal system for monitoring and reporting emissions. This includes a process of "international consultations and analysis" for developing countries that is "nonintrusive, nonpunitive, and respectful of national sovereigim," incorporating analvsis bv technical experts and resulting in a summary report. The UNFCCC met again in December 2011 in Durban, South Africa to continue deliberating on a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012. The conference agreed to develop a legally binding deal comprising all countries, which will be drafted bv 2015, and if approved will take effect in 2020. There was also progress regarding the creation of a Green Climate Fund (G( F) for which a management framework was adopted. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency _although the U.S. is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, in 2002,President George W. Bush set a national Policy goal of reducing the GHG emission intensity (tons of GHG emissions per million dollars of gross 4.2-8 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR domestic product) of the U.S. economy- by 18 percent by 2012.2^ The goal did not establish and- binding reduction mandates. Rather, the USEPA began to administer a variety of voltuitary programs and partnerships with GHG emitters in which the USEP A partners with industries that produce and utilize synthetic gases to reduce emissions of particularly-potent GHGs. This approach to addressing climate change was challenged in bssachusetti et al. r. E/1/i7,ollplelmal Protection �l,eirc�, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). In this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the USEPA was authorized b�the Clean fir pct to regulate CO, emissions from new motor vehicles.2s The Court did not mandate that the USEPA enact regulations to reduce GHG emissions, but found that the only- instances in which the USEPA could avoid taking action were if it found that GHGs do not contribute to climate change or if it offered a "reasonable explanation" for not determining that GHGs contribute to climate change. On December 7, 2009, the USEP A issued an "endangerment finding" under the Clean fir Act, concluding that GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations and that motor vehicles contribute to greenhouse gas pollution.2' These findings provide the basis for adopting new national regulations to mandate GHG emission reductions under the federal Clean fir Act. Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandator-reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufactures of heavy-duty- and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines, and requires annual reporting of emissions, with the first annual reports due in March 2011. This new program will corer approximately- 85 percent of the nation's GHG emissions and apply- to rotighly 10,000 facilities. USEPA's new reporting system will provide a better understanding of GHG sources and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identiffing cost-effective methods to reduce emissions in the future. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII State California has adopted various administrative initiatives and also enacted a variety of legislation relating to climate change, much of which sets aggressive goals for GHG emissions reductions within the state. However, none of this legislation provides definitive direction regarding the treatment of climate change in environmental review documents prepared under (.E(_)-A,. In particular, recent amendments to the CEQ_A, Guidelines do not require or stiggest specific methodologies for performing an assessment or thresholds of significance, and do not specify-greenhouse gas reduction mitigation measures. Instead, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,President Annotmces Clear Skies&Global Climate Change Initiative (February 2002),http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/2002021}--).htm1 (accessed February 2012). Alas achasettc et al. r.Erarirolzmelztezl Protection A;eracy (lfassachusetts), -4911 _ .S. 497 (3007) U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Endangerwent and C use or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(x)of the Clean AirAct(December 2009),http://NNT-,v�v.epa.goy/climatechange/endangennent/ (accessed February 2012). City of South San Francisco 4.2-9 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR CEQ_A, amendments continue to rely- on lead agencies to choose methodologies and mare significance determinations based on substantial evidence.30 Consequently-, no state agency- has promulgated binding regulations for analyzing GHG emissions, determining their significance, or mitigating and- significant effects in CEQ A, documents. The discussion below provides a brief overview of _FRB and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) documents and of the primary- legislation that relates to climate change that may affect the emissions associated with the project. It begins with an overview of the primary- regrrlator�- acts that have driven GHG regrrlation in California, which underlie man- of the GHG riles and regulations that have been developed. Executive Order S-3-05 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2003, through Executive Order S-3-03, the following GHG emission reduction targets: • By 2010, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels • By 2020, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels • By 2030, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions _pct of 2006. The law instructs the California ARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and veriffing of statewide GHG emissions. The _pct directed _FRB to set a GHG emission limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved bv 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a teclinologically and economically-feasible manner. The heart of the bill is the requirement that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Based on_FRB's calculation of 1990 baseline emissions levels, California must reduce GHG emissions bv approximately- 28.3 percent below "business-as-usual" predictions of year 2020 GHG emissions to achieve this goal. In July- 2011 the California_FRB revised its "business as usual" GHG emission estimate for 2020, in order to account for the recent economic downturn in its emission projections.' The estimate presented in the scoping plan (396 million metric tonnes ('.O,e) was based on pre-recession, 2007 data from the Integrated Energy Policy-Report. _FRB has updated the projected "business as usual" 2020 GHG emissions to 343 million metric tonnes The bill requires the California ARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions. hey AB 32 milestones for the California_FRB's actions include the following: California Natural Resources Agency,Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNR, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/docs/Text_of Proposed_Changes.pdf(accessed February 2012). 31 California Air Resources Board, Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures (July 2011), http://�,V-�V.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of scoping_plan_measures.pdf(accessed February 2012). 4.2-10 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR • June 30, 2007 Identification of discrete early action GHG emissions reduction measures. On June 21, 2007, the California ARB satisfied this requirement by approving three early action measures.''These were later supplemented by adding six other discrete early action measures." • January- 1, 2008 Identification of the 1990 baseline GHG emissions level and approval of a statewide limit equivalent to that level and adoption of reporting and verification requirements concerning GHG emissions. On December 6, 2007, the California ARB approved a statewide limit on GHG emissions levels for the year 2020 consistent with the determined 1990 baseline.' • January- 1, 2009 _adoption of a scoping plan for achieving GHG emission reductions. ( rt December 11, 2008, the California ARB adopted Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan), discussed in more detail below." • January 1, 2010 Adoption and enforcement of regulations to implement the "discrete" actions. Several early action measures have been adopted and became effective on January 1, 2010 36,3- • January 1, 2011 _adoption of GHG emissions limits and reduction measures by regilation. ( rt October 28, 2010, the California _FRB released its proposed cap-and-trade regulations, which would corer sources of approximately- 85 percent of California's GHG emissions.'4 The California _FRB's Board ordered its Executive Director to prepare a final regLilatory package for cap-and-trade on December 16, 2010.' • January 1, 2012—GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 become enforceable. As noted above, the California _FRB has adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which outlines the state's strate to achie�-e the 2020 GHG limit set b� _�B 32. This Scoping Plan proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve California Air Resources Board, Summary of Board Meeting: Consideration of Recommendations for Discrete Early Actions for Climate Change Mitigation in California(Sacramento:ARB,June 21, 2007). >; California Air Resources Board, Summary of Board Meeting: Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Additions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the California Global Fanning Solutions Act of 2006 and to Discuss Concepts for Promoting and Recognizing Voluntary Early Actions (Sacramento:ARB,October 25, 2007). 34 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory(millions of metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent) by IPCC Category(Sacramento:ARB,November 2007). http://�,V-�V.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventor-v/archive/tables/ghg_inventoi-y--ipcc_90-04_all_2007-11-19.pdf(accessed February 2012). s California Air Resources Board, Climate Chage Scoping Plan:,4 Fi-amel),ork for Change(Sacramento:ARB,December 2008),http://Nv�NT-,y.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_Scoping_plan.pdf(accessed February 2012). 3c California Air Resources Board, Summary of Board Meeting: Consideration of Recommendations for Discrete Early Actions for Climate Change Mitigation in California(Sacramento:ARB,June 21, 2007). California Air Resources Board, Summary of Board Meeting: Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Additions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the California Global Fanning Solutions Act of 2006 and to Discuss Concepts for Promoting and Recognizing Voluntary Early Actions (Sacramento:ARB,October 25, 2007). 's California fir Resources Board,Rulemaking to Consider the Adoption of a Proposed California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms Regulation,Including Compliance Offset Protocols (Sacramento:ARB,December 16,2010),http://may-v.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtradel0/capandtradel0.htm (accessed February 2012). 39 California Air Resources Board, California Cap-arid-Trade Program. Final Resolution 10-42 (Sacramento:ARB, December 16, 2010),http://Nv�v�y.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtradel0/reslO42.pdf(accessed February 2012). City of South San Francisco 4.2-11 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The key elements of the Scoping Plant" include: • Expanding and strengthening existing ever y efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards • _achieving a statewide renewables ever y mix of 33 percent • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California's GHG emissions • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets • _adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California's clean car standards,goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fluid the administrative costs of California's long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation Senate Bill 375 SB 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in _�B 32.}1 SB 375 includes provisions for streamlined CEQ_� review for some intill projects such as transit oriented development. SB 375 will be implemented over the next several years. SB 375 also requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (:N P()s) relevant to the project area (including the _association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG]) to incorporate a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS) in their regional transportation plans (RTPs) that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by_FRB. SB 375 is similar to the Regional Blueprint Planning Program, established by the California Department of Transportation,which provides discretionary-grants to fluid regional transportation and land use plans voluntarily developed by :NIPOs working in cooperation with Councils of Governments. On April 22, 2009, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (1ITC) adopted the 2009 Regional Transit Plan (RTP) with AB 32 goals in mind. The 2013 RIP will be its first plan subject to SB 375. The Scoping Plan, adopted by ARB in December of 2008, relies on the requirements of SB 375 to implement the carbon dioxide emissions reductions anticipated from land use decisions. SB 375 also required the California _FRB to appoint a Regional Targets _advisory Committee (RLAC) by January- 31, 2009, to recommend factors for the California _FRB to consider and methodologies for it to use in setting GHG emission reduction targets for each region. The RT AC must include representation from the League of California Cities, the California State _association of Counties, 1IPOs, developers, planning organizations, and other stakeholders. In January- 2009, _FRB appointed 21 members to the RT AC, from a variety of constituencies. On September 29, 2009, the RT AC released its California Air Resources Board, Cimate Change Scoping Plan:A Framel),ork for Change(Sacramento:ARB,December 2008),http://Nv�NT-,v.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_Scoping_plan.pdf(accessed February 2012). 31 California,Senate Bi11375(2007-2008 Reg. Session) Stats. (2008), ch. 728. 4.2-12 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR recommendations to the California _FRB, representing a key- step in the establishment of regional targets for inclusion in sustainable community- strategies.' The RLAC recommendations focus largely- on the manner in which the California _FRB staff should interact with various stakeholders during the target- setting process, and how staff should use empirical studies and modeling in establishing regional GHG targets. Following the release of RT AC's recommendations, the California ARB began the process of developing regional GHG reduction targets (Regional Targets) for the state's :N P()s. Chi September 23, 2010, the California _FRB adopted Regional Targets apply frig to the rears 2020 and 2035.}' For the area under ABAG's jurisdiction—which includes the project area—the California_FRB adopted Regional Targets of 7 percent for 2020 and 15 percent for 2035. Chi February- 15, 2011, the California _FRB's Executive Officer approved the final targets.}} The California _FRB filed a Notice of Decision tvo days later on February- 17, 2011.}' Now that the California _FRB has adopted these Regional Targets, the MPOs must begin the process of developing SCSs that meet these Regional Targets for inclusion in their RTPs or, if it is not possible to meet the Regional Targets, 11P()s must develop alternat' e planning strategies demonstrating how the targets will be met. SBx 1 2 SBx1 2, called the California Renewable Energy- Resources _pct, obligates 33 percent of energy- from California's electricity providers to be from renewable resources by 2020. SBx1 2 will require limits be placed on the cost of renewables,will provide waivers and exemptions for providers unable to reach the targets under certain circumstances, and seeks to streamline permitting for renewable and transmission infrastructure projects. SBxl 2 includes all electricity- providers and has set interim targets of 20 percent by 2013 and 25 percent by 2016. In order to qualify, power must be from a renewable electrical generation facility. This means that the facility- must use biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small livdro, digester gas, trash conversion, landfill gas, ocean ware, ocean thermal, or tidal current generation. Public Utilities Code Section 399.16 requires that, by 2017, for renewable resources supplied under power purchase agreements executed after June 1, 2010, 75 percent of the renewable energy must be from California Content and no more than 10 percent from renewable energy credits (RECs). SBx1 2 sets a high bar for electrical firms to reach, however the success of the law depends on if it contains Regional Targets_advisory Committee, &commendations of the R(io&d E et,,4&isot7 Committee Parui ant to Veaate Bill 37> (2009),http://Nv�v�v.onebavarea.org/pdf/Regional_Targets_Advisory Comm Recs.pdf(accessed February 2012). 43 California Air Resources Board,Notice of Decision:Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 37-),SCH# 2010081021 (Sacramento:ARB,February 2011), http://N'V XXV.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb37-)/notice"%20of"%20decision.pdf(accessed February 2012). California Air Resources Board,Executive Order No. G-11-024:Relating to Adoption of Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 37-) (Sacramento,C A:ARB, February 2011). 45 California Air Resources Board,Notice of Decision:Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 37-),SCH# 2010081021 (Sacramento:ARB,February 2011), http://N'V XXV.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb37-)/notice"%20ofl'%20decision.pdf(accessed February 2012). City of South San Francisco 4.2-13 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR costs, accelerates transmissions, streamlines development works in practice, and on if the clauses that authorize waivers and exemptions will jeopardize the objectives. Assembly Bill 1493 _assembly Bill (AB) 1493 required the California _FRB to adopt regulations by January- 1, 2005, to reduce GHG emissions from noncommercial passenger vehicles and light-duty- tnicks of model year 2009 and after.' The bill required the California Climate Action Registry (C(-.AR) to develop and adopt protocols for the reporting and certification of GHG emissions reductions from mobile sources for use by the California _FRB in granting emission reduction credits. The bill authorized the California _FRB to grant emission reduction credits for reductions of GHG emissions prior to the date of the enforcement of regulations,using model rear 2000 as the baseline for reduction. In 2004, ARB applied to the USEP A for a waiver under the Federal Clean fir Act to authorize implementation of these regulations. The waiver request was formally denied by the USEP A in December 2007. In January 2008, the state Attornev General filed a lawsuit against the USEP_ challenging the denial of California's request for a waiver to regilate and limit GHG emissions from these vehicles. In January 2009, President Barack Obama issued a directive to the USEPA to reconsider California's request for a waiver,which the USEPA granted on June 30, 2009.4^ Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), enacted in 2007, amends the CEQ-A, statute to clearly- establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQ-A, analysis. In March 2010, the California Office of _administrative Law codified into law CEQA amendments that provide regLilatory guidance with respect to the analysis and mitigation of the potential effects of GHG emissions, as found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. To streamline analysis, CEQA provides for anal sis through compliance with a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under special circumstances. CEQA Amendments Pursuant to SB 97, OPR developed proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (CEQ A, _amendments) for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions and their effects,which it first submitted to the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) on April 13, 2009. After a public review and comment period, on December 30, 2009, the CNRA adopted the CEQ A amendments, which became effective on March 18, 2010. The C.EQ)A _amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies should "make a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate" GHG emissions. The CEQA _amendments note that an agency- may identify- emissions bv either selecting a "model or methodolo " to quantify- the emissions or by relving on California,Assembly Bill 1493(2001-2002 Reg. Session),Stats. (2002),ch. 200. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas�'aiver Gianted, 74 Fed.Reg. 32744(2009). 4.2-14 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR "qualitative analysis or other performance based standards."as Section 15064.4(1)) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: • The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the environmental setting. • N\Iiether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project. • The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation n of GHG emissios.}' In addition, CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) specifies that "[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence"." Similarly, the revision to CEQ_A, Guidelines _appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form), which is often used as a basis for lead agencies' selection of significance thresholds, does not prescribe specific thresholds. Rather, _appendix G asps whether the project would conflict with a plan, policy or regilation adopted to reduce GHG emissions; or generate GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment, indicating that the determination of what is a significant effect on the environment should be left to the lead agency. Accordingly, the CEQ A, amendments do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQ A Amendments emphasize the lead agency's discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQ_N." The CEQ_N _amendments indicate that lead agencies should consider all feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring and reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions. These potential mitigation measures, set forth in Section 15126.4(c), may include (1) measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of GHG emissions that are required as part of the lead agency's decision; (2) reductions in GHG emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project design features; (3) off-site measures, including offsets, to mitigate a project's emissions; and (4) carbon sequestration measures.'' 's California Natural Resources Agency,Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNR, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/docs/Text_of Proposed_Changes.pdf(accessed February 2012). 13 California Natural Resources Agency,Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/docs/Text_of Proposed_Changes.pdf(accessed February 2012). California Natural Resources A genc ,Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNR.�, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/docs/Text_of Proposed_Changes.pdf(accessed February 2012). California Natural Resources A genc ,Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNR.�, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/docs/Text_of Proposed_Changes.pdf(accessed February 2012). California Natural Resources A genc ,Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNR.�, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/docs/Text_of Proposed_Changes.pdf(accessed February 2012). City of South San Francisco 4.2-15 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR _among other things, the CRNA noted in its Public Notice for these changes that impacts of GHG emissions should focus on the cumulative impact on climate change. The Public Notice states: While the Proposed Aunenchnents do not foreclose the possibility that a single project may result in greenhouse gas emissions with a direct impact on the environment, the evidence before [CRN A] indicates that in most cases, the impact will he cumulative. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments emphasize that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions should center on whether a project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is cumulatively considerable.s' Thus the C.EQ)A amendments continue to make clear that the significance of greenhouse gas emissions is most appropriately- considered on a cumulative level. Executive Order S-13-08 Chi November 14, 2008, Governor Schwarzene�t;er issued Executive Order S-13-08 instructing California agencies to assess and prepare for the impacts of rising sea level associated with climate change.'} Rising; sea levels could have devastating effects on California's infrastructure, such as threatening the state's water supply-, highways, and airports. Pursuant to S-13-08, by June 30, 2009, the CNRA must have assessed California's vulnerability to climate change impacts and outlined solutions to climate change problems. In 2009, the CNR released the California _adaptation Strategy (CAS) report which summarizes the best known science on climate change impacts in the state to assess vulnerability- and outlines possible solutions that can be implemented within and across state agencies to promote resiliency. Executive Order S-13-08 also requires the CNR , to request that the National Academy of Sciences (N AS) convene an independent panel to complete the first California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 1, 2010. In October 2010, the Sea-Level Rise Task Force of the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California _fiction Team released the State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document, noting that the final report from the N AS is unlikely to be released until 2012.°° The interim quidance is intended to "inform and assist state agencies as they develop approaches for incorporating [sea level rise] into planning decisions prior to the release of the N AS report and other teclinical reports". While Executive Order S-13-08 declares executive goals, it does not establish and- binding mandates. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 CCR Title 24, Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency- Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24) were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically- to increase the baseline energy efficiency- requirements. _although it was not originally- intended to reduce GHG emissions, electricity- California Natural Resources Agency,Notice of Public Hearings and Notice of Proposed Amendment of Regulations Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act(Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://NNT-�v�V.ceres.ca.gov/cega/docs/Notice_of Proposed_Action.pdf(accessed February 2012). s 4 State of California,Governor's Executive Order No. S-13-08 (November 14, 2008). Sea Level Rise Task Force of the Coastal and Ocean Forking Group of the California Climate Action Team,Ocean Protection Council's Science Advisory Team,and the California Ocean Science Trust,State of Califonnia Sea-Le1el l�jse Interim Guidance Docrment(2010). 4.2-16 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR production by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less electricity-. Therefore, increased energy efficiency- results in decreased GHG emissions. The 2008 standards are the most recent version which went into effect on January 1, 2010. CCR Title 24, Part 11: California's Green Building Standard Code (CALGreen) was adopted in 2010 and went into effect January- 1, 2011. CALGreen is the first statewide mandator- green building code and significantly raises the minimum environmental standards for constriction of new buildings in California. The Mandatory provisions in C ALGreen will reduce the use of VOC-emitting materials, strengthen water conservation, and require constriction waste recvcling. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Regional Bay Area Air Quality Management District As stated in the B_ AQ1ID's CE()A Guidelines, the B_ AQ1ID is the primary agency- responsible for the reduction in climate change emissions for the entire SFB AAB. As discussed above, B AAQ:NID recently adopted updated B AAQ:NID CE(_) Guidelines. B_ AQ:NID's Guidelines include new thresholds of significance developed to assist local jurisdictions and agencies in complyflig with the requirements of CEQ_A, regarding potentially- adverse impacts on the global climate. As previously noted, the Mav 2011 B AAQ:NID CEQ A Guidelines were invalidated by the Alameda County Superior Court due to B AAQ:NID's failure to conduct (.E(_)-A, review analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the Guidelines themselves. The City of South San Francisco believes the B AAQ:NID Guidelines are supported by substantial evidence, and has applied them to the analysis that follows (refer to CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 3064.7(c)). The updated May 2011 B_ AQ1ID CE(_)A Guidelines state that a land use development project would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact if it would meet at least one of the following; thresholds: • Be consistent with the policies of a qualified Climate Action Plan • Produce emissions of no more than 4.6 SIT CO,e per service population (SP)56 annually • Produce emissions of no more than 1,100 SIT CO,e annually B_ AQ1ID did not adopt a GHG threshold with respect to constriction emissions associated with either plan-level or individual development projects. However, B AAQ:NID recommended that the Lead Agency quantify-and disclose constriction emissions and mare a significance determination of these emissions in relation to meeting the AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate Best Management Practices (131IPs) to reduce GHG emissions during constriction. B1IPs may include, but are not limited to: • Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) constniction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet • Using local building materials of at least 10 percent 56 Service population is defined as the total number of residents and employees associated with the implementation of the project. For the project the Service Population(SP) is equal to 7,463 employees. City of South San Francisco 4.2-17 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR ■ Recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials Bay Area Regional Agency Climate Protection Program. The Joint Policy Committee (composed of the ABAG, B_ AQ1ID, San Francisco Bad- Conservation and Development Commission [BCDC], and Metropolitan Transportation Commission [1ITC]) approved the Bay- Area Regional _agency Climate Protection Program on flay -1, 2007 (amended July 20, 2007), to reduce potential effects of climate change. This program includes strategies to: • Establish management priorities based on impacts, benefits, ease of implementation, and cost- effectiveness • Increase public awareness and motivate action through workshops and grass-roots outreach • Provide assistance such as standardization of procedures for determining impacts, maintaining and distributing data, model codes and other tools, funding for demonstration projects, and others • Reduce driving and promote alternative modes of transportation through mechanisms such as road pricing, mode competitiveness, and regional development planning • Prepare to adapt, because regardless of regional reductions in potential causes contributing to global climate change, the region will be affected by changing environmental conditions • Increase the importance of (.E(_)-A, review of CO, emissions, conduct life-cycle costing of all capital projects, encourage energy-efficient development with sliding-scale permit fees, rebates and expedited permit review processes, and return the region's freeways to a maximum of 55 miles per hour Local South San Francisco The City- of South San Francisco currently- has not adopted a plan or specific policies that address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, many of the City's existing ordinances and policies, including its aggressive Transportation Demand Management program, increased accessibility- to BART extension into South San Francisco, encouraging mixed and transit oriented development, and designing communities to promote alternative transportation, achieve the same objectives. South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400 requires that all nonresidential development with more than 100 average daily trips reduce vehicle trips by ensuring a minimum of 28 percent alternative mode usage. Genentech Genentech has developed both a Sustainability- Plan and a Transportation Demand Management Program to reduce ever y and transportation requirements and emissions as well as provide convenience for the Genentech employees. As of 2010, Genentech's Transportation Demand Management Program (gRide) has reduced vehicle trips by its employees by 35 percent at its South San Francisco Campus.`^ Program features include an Atkins, Genentech HEIR Update Trczffac Im�actA a rly.,s(July 2012). 4.2-18 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR intracampus bike share program; sixteen Ge11etiNis routes, which boast a daily- ridership of over 2,800; and provision of amenities to support employees, such as a cafeteria, food services, fitness center, child care, and on-site mobile renders for services such as canvashes, hair salons, and dental services. In 2010, gRide participation helped to reduce over 900,000 vehicle trips and approximately 14 million pounds of CO, emissions. Anticipated development through 2012 will provide further support for the gRide program and include upgrading street lighting, installing bicycle storage in campus parking strictures, installing bike lanes, and adding new sidewalks and crosswalks. The Sustainability Plan was introduced with 2009 as the baseline and requires that each site throughout the company develop an Energy fiction Plan to contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions from energy use at the site. Company-wide, Genentech's ever y usage between 2007 and 2009 increased from 2,303,000 gigajoules per rear ((;J/year) to 2,481,000 (;J/year. Throtigh the implementation of the Energy Action Plans Genentech is committed to reducing energy consumption from utilities by 15 percent from 2009 levels by 2014, and reduce solid waste by 50 percent from 2009 levels by 2014. As a result, emissions in 2010 were reduced by 2.3 percent to 2,425,000 (;J/year and are anticipated to continue to reduce as the Energy fiction Plans continue to be implemented. As part of the SustainabilitY Plan the following measures are being implemented at the South San Francisco Campus: • Lighting efficiency: Improve lighting efficiency in all buildings and parking areas through light future and lamp upgrades • Lighting controls: Install occupancy sensing controls in all offices and laboratories • Solar window film: Install solar window film at the south campus, Founder's Resource Center (FRC), and Lower Campus buildings • Retro commissioning (RCx): RCx are building tune ups of the HVAC system. RCx is anticipated to occur in all buildings • Expand building automation system: These systems improve ever y efficiency and allow for night and weekend HVAC setbacks. Setbacks will not include temperature setbacks in laboratories • Chiller and boiler plant efficiency: Improve equipment and pumping efficiency through installation of controls and motor speed controls • _fir handler upgrades for efficiency and HV_A,C: Replace DX cooling air handlers in offices buildings to improve energy efficiency • Exhaust system improvements: Install speed controls, automation equipment and replace ductwork to improve the laboratory-and exhaust systems 4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Analytic Method The 2007 MEIR did not evaluate GHG emissions. In 2010 the (.E(_)-A, Guidelines were amended to include the analysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as described in the Regulator- Framework section. N\Iiile the project description has not changed, this SMEIR evahiates full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, approximately 2,708,100 square feet (sf) of remaining development City of South San Francisco 4.2-19 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR capacity-. The impact analysis for the project is based on a GHG emissions analysis, which is presented below. GHG emissions associated with the development and operation of the project were estimated using the GalEElfod Version 2011.1 software, trip generation data from the Geiaelmech lIEIR t,�(Jrte Tizr#z-e Impact Ali(rIy.l7.r prepared for this SMEIR, emissions factors from the California Climate _fiction Registry-, and other sources. The methodology and assumptions used in this analysis are detailed below for constniction and operation activities. Refer to Appendix D (Greenhouse Gas Emission Supporting Data) for model output and detailed calculations. As discussed above, because the impact each GHG has on climate change varies, a common metric of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO,e) is used to report a combined impact from all of the GHGs, which describes how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO,. Thus, GHG emissions in this an ilysis are measured in terms of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (1fT C(),e). The Genentech project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change on its own. However, the project contributes to this environmental impact by its incremental contribution of GHG emissions that,when combined with the cumulative increase of all other anthropogenic sources of GHGs, could affect global climate change. Therefore, GHG emissions are analvzed as a cumulative impact. In order to determine whether a project would cause a significant effect on global climate change, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the ty es and levels of GHG emissions generated. The following describes the constriction and operational emission sources and the methodole<� of how GHG emissions are estimated for the project. Construction Constnzction activities can alter the carbon cycle in many different ways. Construction equipment typically utilizes fossil fuels, which generates GHGs such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Methane may also be emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. The raw materials used to constnzct new buildings can sequester carbon; however, demolition of strictures can result in the gradual release of the carbon stored in waste building materials as those materials decompose in landfills. Since the exact nature of the origin or make-up of the construction materials is unknown, construction-related emissions are typically based on the operation of vehicles and equipment during constniction. Constniction is a temporary- source of emissions necessary to facilitate development of the project. _although these emissions are temporary-, they- must be acknowledged, as the impact from the emissions of GHGs is cumulative. The project development does not include the exact size and schedule of the inditiridual development projects to be implemented through plan build-out. This precludes the ability to quantitatiti elv evaluate emissions from construction activities. Therefore, emissions from construction of the project are discussed qualitatively in the document. Operation The following activities are ty ically associated with the operation of commercial and industrial land uses that will contribute to the generation of GHG emissions: 4.2-20 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Vehicular trips. Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in GHG emissions through combustion of fossil ftiels. Carbon dioxide emissions were determined based on the trip rates provided in the traffic impact analysis. The trip generation rates calculated in the traffic impact analysis for the project were modified from CalEE:NIod default trip generation rates in order to reflect the effectiveness of the TD1I and trip reduction strategies included in the gRide Program." Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions were estimated using the total veliicle miles traveled as determined by CalEEllod and USEPA emissions factors for on-road veliicles. On-site use of natural gas and other fuels. Natural gas would be used by the project for heating and laboratory- uses resulting in a direct release of GHG,-,. The use of landscaping equipment would also result in on-site GHG emissions. Estimated emissions from the combustion of natural gas and landscape emissions is based on the square footage of nonresidential buildings and is estimated using the default project consumption rates as presented in the CalEE:NIod model. GHG emissions associated with building envelope ever y use vary based on the size of structures, the type and extent of energy-efticienc�- measures incorporated into structural designs, and the tv e and size of equipment installed. Complete building envelope details could not be incorporated into the project inventorv, as such information was not available at the time of the analysis. Tlierefore, it was assumed that the building envelopes would comply with the current minimal standards for new development at the project site. Electricity use. Electricity is generated by a combination of methods, which include combustion of fossil fuels. By using electricity, the project would contribute to the indirect emissions associated with electricity production. Estimated emissions from the consumption of electricity is based on the square footage of nonresidential building use and default electrical consumption rates as presented in the CalEEllod modeling output CalEEllod calculates the emissions associated with the electricity consumption using an emissions factor specific to Pacific Gas and Electric, the electricat< pro�-ider for the Genentecli site. The CalEEllod default emission factors for PG&E was replaced with the most current PG&E emission factors which take into account PG&E's renewable sources meeting 19 percent of electrical generation. Water use and wastewater generation. California's water conveyance system is energy-intensive,with electricity used to pump and treat water. The project would contribute indirectly to emissions by consuming water and generating wastewater. Estimated emissions from the consumption of potable water and the generation of wastewater is based on the square footage of nonresidential building and default water consumption/waste water generation rates as presented in the CalEEllod model. The CalEEllod model was adjusted through "mitigation" to show a reduction of 20 percent in water consumption as required under the Title 24 Cal Green regulation. '4 Atkins, Genentech HEIR Update Rgffac Imp act A&a Iy.,is(July 2012). s�Pacific Gas and Electric,PG&E Tallies Renewable Energ-Gains in 2011,News Release (January 11, 2012), htq)://NNT-,�v.p.ge.com/al)out/newsro()M/newsreleases/2()12()l 11/pgamp e_tallie s_renewable_energ�--e;uns_in_2011.sht ml (accessed June 19,2012). City of South San Francisco 4.2-21 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Solid waste. Disposal of organic waste in landfills can lead to the generation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. By generating solid wastes, the project would contribute to the emission of fugitive methane from landfills, as well as CO, CH} and N,() from the operation of trash collection vehicles. Estimated emissions from the generation of solid waste is based on the square footage of nonresidential building use and default waste generation rates as presented in the CalEEllod model. The Ox Mountain Landfill, where project waste is disposed of, has a gas-to-energy system in place and operating that reduces the emissions of CH, anticipated from landfilling solid waste at this facility-. Genentech has increased their solid waste diversion rate to 58 percent by 2010, in accordance with their SustainabilitV Plan.`i0 The CalEEllod model was adjusted through "mitigation" to show a 50 percent reduction in waste generation as implemented by the project and California regilations. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2012 CEQA Guidelines _appendix G and the recently adopted B_ AQ:NID Guidelines. For purposes of this SMEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact on global climate change if it would do any-of the following: • Generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly- or indirectly, that may- have a significant impact on the environment • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases For the purposes of this analysis and based on full consideration of the available information, the B_ AQ1ID previously recommended that GHG analysis for plans other than General Plans and Transportation Plans be analyzed using the project level emissions thresholds and methodology. The B AAQ:NID does not recommend or provide thresholds of significance for emissions from construction activities. They do recommend that emissions are quantified and disclosed and that the Lead _agency make a significance determination with respect to meeting the AB 32 reduction goals. The B AAQ:NID thresholds for project level operational emissions are: • Compliance with a qualified Climate Action Plan or other plan that sets GHG emission reduction goals • The project emits up to the screening threshold of 1,100 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (1IT ('.(),e per year) • The project emits up to 4.6 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population (AIT (-.O,e/SP)6' annually The City- does not have a qualified plan in place for the citywide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and a project of this scope would be unlikely to generate less than 1,100 1IT ('.(),e/year. Therefore, for the purposes of this anal ysis significance with respect to operational emissions of GHGs will be based on the -1.6 SIT CO,e/SP/year threshold. Although this threshold has been vacated by the court, in the G0 Genentech,Annual&port 209 9:Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan(May 2011). Gl Service population is defined as the total number of residents and employees associated with the implementation of the project. For the project the Service Population(SP) is equal to 4,319 employees. 4.2-22 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR absence of an alternative, applicable threshold, this SMEIR continues to use this formerly recommended threshold. 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures «%ere identified in the 2007 MEIR with respect potential Climate Change impacts. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. However, quantification of the greenhouse gas levels does not exceed the threshold established by the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Operation The GHG emissions associated with operation of the project were calculated using GalEElfod. As described above, the project would implement a substantial Traffic Demand Management (TD:N ) program in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the project. The TD:NI reductions utilized in this analysis assume a 25 percent reduction in veliicle trips, consistent with the East of 101 traffic study. The veliicle trips associated with the TD1I were provided as the project specific trip rates and therefore are presented in the GalEElfod model as part of the unmitigated emissions. Genentech participates in an energy reduction plan and has numerous sustainability programs and features as described in detail under the Renilatory Environment section above. Speciticall) Getientecli is committed to reducing energy consumption from utilities by 15 percent from 2009 levels by 2014, and to reducing solid waste I)y 50 percent from 2009 levels I)y 2014. These are reflected in the GalEElfod model as they correspond with the existing regulatory requirements. In addition, the reduction of water consumption b)- 20 percent was also included in the GalEElfod calculations as it is required b)-Title 24, Part 11. Table 4.2-1 (Pro)ect-Level GHG Emissions) shows the GHG emissions associated with operation of the project. As shown the unmitigated project emissions would generate approximately 2.98 SIT CO,e per employee (based on a total of 7,463 employees). Therefore, operation of the project would not exceed the B_ AQ1fD threshold for GHG emissions of 4.6 :NIT C(),e per service population, and would result in a less-than signilicantimpact. Assumptions and calculations are included as Appendix D. Construction There are no adopted thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, B_ AQ1ID does recommend that lead agencies quantify and disclose GHG emissions from construction activities. Further, lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate B:N Ps to reduce GHG emissions during City of South San Francisco 4.2-23 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR construction, as applicable. The project would generate GHG emissions during the construction period from operation of constriction equipment and the types and origin of building materials. Details of the construction of the project are undefined at this time and therefore, calculating constnuction emissions would be speculative. The project buildings will be developed on an as-needed b Isis so it is unknown at what level or during what time period a site may be developed or if sites would be developed where constriction phases of one site may overlap with constriction phases of other sites. Therefore impacts Table Project-Level Source GHG Emissions(MT COse/Year) Area 0.00 Energy 11,376.23 Mobile 9,220.12 Waste 385.68 Water 1,274.90 Total 22,256.93 Service Population 7,463 MT/SP(CalEEMod Reductions) 2.98 BAAQMD Threshold 4.60 Significant? No from construction activities are discussed qualitatively herein. The implementation of the following B AAQ:NID recommended best management practices to reduce GHG emissions,would serge to reduce the level of constnuction oriented GHG emissions. ■ Using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) constnuction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet ■ Using local building materials of at least 10 percent of the total building area ■ Recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of constriction waste or demolition materials The predominant emission source is exhaust from the operation of construction materials and trips for delivering constriction materials. If constriction emissions could be quantified, by- adding constriction emissions to operational emissions and comparing that to the B_ AQ1fD per service population threshold, emissions from constriction activities would be accounted for. _according to Table 42-1, operational emissions represent 2.98 AIT CO,e per service population. If construction emissions are added to operational emissions then annual constriction emissions could equal 1.53 AIT C(),e per service population annually- (11,418 :NIT CO,e) and the project would remain less than significant for GHG impacts. Further, constniction emissions, when added to annual operational emissions, would be amortized over the life of the individual development. In other words, total project constnuction emissions would be divided by- the average expected longevity- of a project for 30 years. Therefore, total constriction emissions for any- subsequent development project would need to exceed 342,552 AIT C(),e in order for construction emissions of the project to exceed the per service population threshold when combined with operational emissions. 4.2-24 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR According to the B_ AQ:NID, construction activities represent a relatively small percent (less than 3 percent) of the total San Francisco Bay _fir Basin greenhouse gas emissions.`'2 Furtlier, in 2005 South San Francisco emitted approximately- 526,766 :NIT C(),e and is anticipated, without reductions, to emit 637,852 SIT ('.(-),e annually by 2020.x' In order for constniction emissions from the project to exceed the service population threshold, annual emissions would need to exceed 11,-118 1IT C(),e or would be approximately 1.79 percent to 2.17 percent of the total anticipated emissions annual City- emissions. Ntiliile it is possible that if the entirety- of the Genentecli expansion was built in one year its constriction emissions could represent the majority of the City's annual constniction, the fact that the Genentech expansion is to occur on an as-needed basis precludes this potential. It is liiglily unlikely, therefore, that with constniction from the entire city representing less than 3 percent of total emissions, emissions from a single project would represent nearly- 2 percent of total city emissions. Further, it is lii�lily unlikely that a single 2,000,000 sf development would result in constriction emissions equaling over half of the total annual operational emissions for the entire City. Annual constniction-related emissions are typically much lower than the threshold for operational emissions, and would be one-time emissions. In addition, construction emissions would not exceed 11,418 :NIT C(),e annually and the best management practices are designed to reduce emissions from vehicle miles traveled from constriction activities. As a result of these factors and because the project incorporates best management practices recommended by B AAQ:NID, impacts from construction-related GHG emissions on global climate would be considered less than significant. Threshold Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. However, quantification of the greenhouse gas levels does not exceed the threshold established by the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant The proposed B_ AQ1ID thresholds are designed sucli that a 90 percent capture rate is achieved. This 90 percent capture rate means that 90 percent of all development projects would need to incorporate some form of emission reductions in order to reduce emissions. These rates are established to be compliant with AB 32's requirement to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Because the project is below the B_ AQ1ID threshold of 4.6 :NIT ('.(),e/SP as discussed in detail under Impact 4.2-1, the project is considered to be consistent with AB 32. SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The California _FRB has adopted vehicular greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the San Francisco Bay Area that require a 7 percent reduction by 2020 and a 62 Bay Area_fir Quality:Xfanagement District, Illol-kiqo Draft Options&port Czliforni r Entironmentcrl0uzrlityActThleshoh-1 of -S'i zrifzcalzce(April 2009). 6' City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco 2005 Community 1 'i e Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inrentoz) (lanuary 2011). City of South San Francisco 4.2-25 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 15 percent reduction by 2035 for each :NIP(). The aggressive gRide TD1I program implemented by Genentech, and discussed under Regulatory Environment, above, achieves a reduction in at least 25 percent in employee vehicle trips. This reduction would exceed the 2035 reduction goal, thereby contributing to a reduction in citywide transportation emissions that are required for the region to meet both the 2020 and 2035 goals established under SB 375. Because the project is consistent with both the reduction goals of AB 32 and because it furthers the reduction goals set forth under SB 327, impacts for greenhouse gas emissions with the implementation of this project are considered less than ssgni&cant. 4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of the project's climate change impact, discussed above, is an analvsis of the project's contribution to a cumulatively significant global impact throtigh its emission of GHGs. The cumulative impacts of the project,with respect to the issue of climate change, are therefore captured in the project- level analysis, and no further cumulative analysis is necessary. 4.2.7 References Anderson, M. Chapter 6: Climate Change Impacts on Flood Management. In California Department of Water Resources. Amvss oa Ineoipwatigo Climate Chalige into Plalmiiy alid,-Malurgenleiat of(-'zforiaz�r'.r Vater Resourees. Technical Memorandum Report, pp. 6-22 and 6-27, 2006. Atkins. Geiaentech lIEIR t,�d rte Tizif e Impact An(rlyii.i July 2012. Bay Area_fir Quality-Management District. (-'zforiaz�r Enrz)o anleiatal Colim lAetAirQllality Guidelines, Mav 2011. lf"wki y D��ift Options Repot Crliforiaz�r Enrz),o amen&&Qllality Act Thmesholds of,Si 11afzuxnee,April 2009. California_fir Resources Board. California Cap-and-Trade Program. Final Resolution 10-42. Sacramento: _FRB, December 16, 2010. littp://Nv�v�v.arl).ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtradelO/resIO42.pdf (accessed February 2012). California Greenhouse Gas Inventory (millions of metric tonnes of COQ equivalent) by II'CC Category. Sacramento: _FRB, November 2007. http://Nvww.arb.ca.goy-/cc/itiventory/arcliive/tables/gh in�-entor�_ipcc_90 04_all_2007-11-19.pdf (accessed February 2012). Climate Ch rise,S eosin,Mali:A F� rule»o��.for"alige. Sacramento: _FRB, December 2008. littp://Nv�v�v.arb.ca.goV/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping—l-)lan.pdf(accessed February- 2012). Executive Order No. G-11-024: Relating to _adoption of Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for_automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. Sacramento, CA: _FRB, Febniary 2011. Greenhouse Gas Inventor-Data 2002-2008, 1Iav 12, 2010. Notice of Decision: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for_automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. SCH# 2010081021. Sacramento: _FRB, Febniary 2011. littp://Nv�v�v.arl).ca.gov/cc/sl)375/notice',o2Oof'o2Odecision.pdf(accessed February 2012). 4.2-26 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Rulemaking to Consider the_adoption of a Proposed California Gap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms Regulation, Inchiding Compliance Offset Protocols. Sacramento: ARB, December 16, 2010. littp://Nv<v<v.arl).ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtr adelO/capandtr,ideIO.litm (accessed February 2012). Status of Scoping Plan Recommended lfeasures,July- 2011. littp://Nv<v<v.arb.ca.goV/cc/ scopingplan/status_of scopin�l-)lan_measures.pdf(accessed February- 2012). Summary- of Board fleeting: Consideration of Recommendations for Discrete Earl-_fictions for Climate Change Mitigation in California. Sacramento: _FRB,June 21, 2007. Summary- of Board fleeting: Public fleeting to Consider_approval of_additions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the California Global Warming Solutions _pct of 2006 and to Discuss Concepts for Promoting and Recognizing Volhuitary Earl-_fictions. Sacramento: _FRB, October 25, 2007. California Climate Change Center. Cavan, D.,P. Bromirski, K. Havhoe, 1I. Tvree, 1l. Dettinger, and R. Flick. Pr jectil,hrltme,Vea Lerel: Table 3 Pr jeeted,global sea lerel rise (SLR) (NI)for the,QE,V Al f,A2, alid B 1,greelihou.re,gas euliSSzoli .ree&vios. ,SLR forA2 alid B 1 .ree&vios i.r ertiulated1 by'eombilailig output reeem' lobal cliulate chal?ge ulo 1el.iiululrtion.i»zth lIAGICCp '� eetion.i for the ice Melt eomponelit. ,SLR eitiulate.i forAl fr estiulated fi'oul AIAGICC based oli A2 tempoatme char ges.curled accw'lil, to those ira Al fi. A Report from the California Climate Change Center CEC-500-2005-2002-SF. p. 19, 2006. California Natural Resources _agency. Notice of Public Hearings and Notice of Proposed_amendment of Regulations Implementing the California Environmental Quality pct. Sacramento: CNRA 2009. littp://Nv%v%v.ceres.ca.goV/cega/does/Notice_of_Prop osed_Action.pdf(accessed February-2012). Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments. Sacramento: CNRA, 2009. littp://ceres.ca.goV/cega/does/Text_of Pro p osed_Changes.pdf(accessed February-2012). Genentech.Alanual Report 2011: Gelielmech Eacilitier Teli Year l aster Plali, 11av 2011. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate "al ge 2007:Impacts,Ad6rpt�rtiolr, alid Vulneiability. Contributioli of lf"wkil, Gaup II to the Thir'1 As essplelit Report of the hmol or erirulelital Paliel oli Climate "al ge. Para-, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F.,Pahitikof,Jean P.,van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University-Press, 1,000 pp., 2007. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiative, February- 2002. littp://georgeNvbusliNvliitehouse.arcliives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/2002021-1-5.litml (accessed February-2012). Pacific Gas and Electric. Fighting Climate Change. http://NV«v<v.pge.com/about/environment/pge/climate (accessed March 12, 2012). PG&E Tallies Renewable Energy Gains in 2011. News Release,January 11, 2012. http://NV«v<v.pge.com/about/newsroom/neNvsreleases/20120111/pgampe_tallies_renewable_energ �ains_in_2011.shtml (accessed June 19, 2012). Regional Targets _advisory Committee. Reeoululelidation.r of the Re,iolial Tar eti Add irog Coululittee Purrualit to ,Velurte Bill 375, 2009. littp://Nv<v<v.onel)avarea.org/pdf/Regional_Targets_Advisorv_Comm_Recs.pdf (accessed February- 2012). City of South San Francisco 4.2-27 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Sea Level Rise Task Force of the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate_fiction Team, Ocean Protection Council's Science Advisory Team, and the California Ocean Science Trust. ,State of Califoriai�r,Vea-Level Rise hmoipl Guibli e Docupleiat, 2010. South San Francisco, City-of. City of,Vouth,Vala Fialati.ieo 2005 Coululu aity-Vide Gaeelahou.re Gas EN/z*SSZ*0/1.i Inr eratoa y,January- 2011. Zoail, 0a'(,# grace t,�date, December 17, 2009. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. ,Vuul ofAlmeN I alid N oa AlmeN I Countaier aaithout Couratir,L Ill d-I"se, Lara 1 I;T.ie Chari,e arid Foaeitay (LI;LI;TC�, Pae lefrae 1��ueaiei: GHG total aaithout LULUCF(AlaneN I Paa ies). Bonn, Germany, 2007. http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_dat,i/predefined_queries/items/3814.plip (accessed February 2012). U.S. Environmental Protection_agency. California Greenhouse Gas Waiver Granted, 74 Fed. Reg. 32744 (2009). Ecosystems Impacts &_adaptation, 2012.«'ww.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/eco.html (accessed June 2012). Era 1ar,eaulerat ara 1 Cru.ie or Corataibute Fila 1ir,.i for Gaeerahou.ie Gaiei ura lea ,Seetiora 202(r� of the Cle rra Air Act, December 2009. http://Nv«v<v.epa.gov/climatecliange/endangerment/ (accessed February 2012). Climate Change Indicators in the United States. Weather and Climate. Nv<v<v.epa.gov/climatecliange/science/recentpsc.litml (accessed February 2012). 4.2-28 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IN 4.3 LAND USE/PLANNING 4.3.1 Background The 2007 HEIR evaluated the consistency of the project with plans and goals adopted by the City- of South San Francisco, including development standards relating; to building; height, Floor Area Ratio and parking potential. Consequently, the Genentech Master Plan District was codified in the City's Zoning Ordinance and future build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be subject to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, including the Genentech Master Plan District standards. The analysis in the 2007 HEIR as to planning standards remains valid. For purposes of this SMEIR, the only new information that has arisen since certification of the 2007 HEIR is the San Francisco Bay- Conservation and Development Commission's (BCDC) adoption of the October 2011 Climate Change Bap Plan amendment to the previously adopted BCDC Bay Plan. This section therefore analyzes the project's consistency with the BCDC Bap Plan (which now includes the Climate Change Amendment) and specifically focuses on changes to the regulatory requirements to land use/planning with respect to the potential effects from sea level rise. The sea level rise that has been estimated by the National Oceanic and _atmospheric _administration (NO_ A) based on historical observations is about 16 inches over the past century-, which is consistent with the estimates that traditional coastal developments have included in their design. However, based on climate change studies over the past tvo decades, the rate of sea level rise appears to be accelerating and climate change models are predicting greater rates of sea level rise in the future in response to warmer temperatures and the thermal expansion of melting ice caps. It should be noted that a recent court of appeal decision makes clear that CEQ_A, does not require analysis of the impacts of sea level rise on a project (Ballona Vetla acts Laid Tirv.it r. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal.App.Tl' 455 [2d Dist. Ct. of_appeal, 2011]). Nevertheless, for informational purposes and to analyze consistency, with land use plans, this SMEIR includes an analvsis of the project's consistency with sea level rise plans and policies.`'} No comment letters addressing land use/planning were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the project. Data for this section were taken from the 2007 HEIR and the San Francisco Bay- Conservation and Development Commission. Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.3.6 (References). 64 In addition,some of the earliest superior court decisions on climate change held that the concept of climate change - and related laws and policies -is not"significant new information"within the meaning of CEQ A. See Awerzcan C�rnyon Community Unite for e� onsihle Gronth et al r. City ofAmerican Canyon et al, Case No. 26-27}62 (Napa County Superior Court,1fay 22, 2007);Natural Resources Defense Council et al. r. Reclamation Board of the&sources A ency of the SIxe of California, Case No. 06-CS 01228 (Sacramento County Superior Court,April 27,2007). City of South San Francisco 4.3-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4.3.2 Environmental Setting IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Regional and Project Location The HEIR Stud- Area is located along the western shoreline of central San Francisco Bay-. The East of 101 Area generally slopes downward to the east, towards San Francisco Bay-. The HEIR Stud- _area, itself, comprises a hill- region to the south, formed bv soutlieast-trending Covote Point Fault Zone, and low-lying areas to the northeast. Elevations range from 182 feet above mean sea level (_A,1ISL) at the top of San Bruno Hill to approximately- 0 feet _ :NISL at the low-lying areas in the northeast portion of the HEIR Stud-Area (USGS 1956). No portion of the HEIR Stud- Area is located in the 100-rear or 500- year floodplains, which are the result of flooding in Colma Creep. However, according to the City's General Plan, the eastern shoreline of the HEIR Stud- Area is subject to 100-rear flood conditions as a result of coastal flooding and ware action. (IIIIIIIIIIIIIII General Plan/Zoning Designations The project site is currently- zoned as Genentech Master Plan District (SSFIIC Chapter 20260), with a narrow strip of land that extends south along the coastline designated as Parrs & Open Space (SSFIIC Chapter 20.130). The majority- of the project area is designated as Business and Teclinology Parr, with the southern portion along the San Francisco Bay- designated as Parr and Recreation in the City's General Plan. The small Parr and Recreation General Plan land use category- includes the Bay- Trail and coastal beach areas. 4.3.3 Regulatory Framework The 2007 HEIR did not address land use and planning as it pertains to sea level rise; therefore, the information below is updated from the 2007 HEIR Consistency-with other plans was addressed in the 2007 :NIEIR. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Federal There are no federal laws that pertain to land use/planning with respect to sea level rise that are applicable to the project. However, there are regulatory agencies and departments that are actively working to determine methods to protect shoreline and coastal resources from the potential threats to sea level rise. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) The Coastal Zone Management _pct ((.Z1I_A,) primarily- fiuictions to preserve and protect coastal resources. The objectives of the CZ1LA are to protect and preserve coastal ecosystems, manage coastal development, improve water quality-, utilize economic and energy resources, and coordinate and simplify- administrative procedures. The CZ1LA, addresses sea level rise in its findings and policy- declaration and in regilations implementing the statute: 16 USC ,1452 (Section 303). To aid the states in developing programs that will help provide protection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their habitats within the coastal zone 4.3-2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IN and for the management of coastal development to minimize the loss of life and property- caused by improper development in flood-prone, storm-surge, geological hazard, and erosion-prone areas and in areas likely- to be affected by or NArterable to sea level rise, land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, and by the destnuction of natural protective features such as beaches, dunes,wetlands, and barrier islands. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The Federal Emergency Management _agency (FE1LA,) maps flood zones based on potential flooding caused by rainfall, or a combination of rainfall, tides, storm surge, and ware motion. Flood zones are geographic areas that FEND, has defined according to varving levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood Insurance Rate flap (FIR1� or Flood Hazard Boundary- flap. Each zone reflects the severity or t�-pe of flooding in the area. _according to the FIRM for the City-, no portion of the HEIR Stud- Area is located within the 100-rear or 500 rear floodplains. However, according to the City's General Plan, the eastern shoreline of the HEIR Stud- Area is subject to 100-rear flood conditions as a result of coastal flooding and ware action. The traditional approach to designing coastal developments is as specified by FEND, and local agency g uidance policies,which is to set interior grades throughout a community such that finished floor elevations for buildings (e.g., the elevation of the first floor of inhabitable space) would be at or above the present-day- Base Flood Elevation (BFE) (e.g., the water surface elevation that would occur during a 100-rear flood event). Improvements along the shoreline are required only- to protect nearby structures or facilities against storm ware nun-up and overtopping during a flood event that has a one percent chance of occurring, as specified by FEND, (sometimes referred to as the "One Percent Annual Chance of Occurrence Event"). IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII State Of the various applicable state laws and plans that pertain to land use/planning, the primary- applicable plan with respect to sea level rise is the Bad-Plan, as amended by the BCDC in October 2011 (see below). In addition, there are regulatory agencies and departments that are actively working to determine methods to protect shoreline and coastal resources from the potential threat to sea level rise. California Coastal Act The California Coastal_pct of 1976 created a coastal zone extending 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line mark. The California Coastal Commission administers the _pct and certifies local coastal programs. Development within the coastal zone is by permit, and must conform to the requirements of the local plan. However, the BCDC. has jurisdiction over shoreline areas within the San Francisco Bay and has been active in planning for sea level rise in the Bay- region, and in 2007 published Planning for Sea Level Rise in San Francisco Bay-. McAteer-Petris Act The Mc Ateer-Petris Act of 1965 gives the BCDC jurisdiction over shoreline priority use areas. The McAteer-Petris _pct gives BCDC jurisdiction over a 100-foot shoreline band around San Francisco Bay-. The development of the bay and shoreline, economic and population growth; safety- of fills;water-related industries; ports; commercial fishing; airports; recreation;wild life refuge, salt ponds and other managed City of South San Francisco 4.3-3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR wetlands; transportation; other uses of the bay- and shoreline; refuse disposal sites; public access; appearance, design, scenic views and water oriented recreation. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission The BCDC. developed a Strategic Plan in 2007 that identities the potential effects that climate change can have on ocean coastal and near-coastal resources, and the need to consider these impacts in determining the priority of expenditures in the design and implementing funded infrastructure projects; to support others in order to improve our understanding of the effects of climate change; and to identify tools to mitigate and plan for a range of predicted changes. California Climate Change Center predicts that sea level in California would rise between 10.9 and 71.6 centimeters (cm) (0.36 and 2.3 feet) above existing mean sea level by 2099 as a result of climate change. The BCDC will consider the 16 inches (40 cm) by 2010 and 55 inches (1 10 cm) by 2100 sea level rise scenarios in assessing project Ntilner<tbilit< and, to the extent feasible, to reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea level rise. On October 6, 2011, BCDC approved Bay Plan amendment No. 1-08 (referred to as the "Climate Change Bad- Plan _amendment") to address climate change and to update language on sea level rise policy. The Climate Change Bad-Plan_amendment was based on the -vulnerability assessment prepared by BCDC staff in 2008, titled Liriiy vith a Rifl'ly Boxy: Vulneiability alid A(,16rpl�itio i i s ,Va/l Flanei.seo Bury a/ld, oa its ,Vhweline (as revised throtigh September 23, 2011). The Climate Change Bay Plan _amendment added a new Climate Change section to the Bad-Plan, and amended Bay-Plan findings and polices related to tidal marshes and tidal flats, safety- of fills, shoreline protection and public access, including recommendations to perform a risk assessment of 100-rear flood risk based on best estimated sea level rise. The amendments also call for the BCDC to review projects in its jurisdictional zone "on a case-by-case basis to determine the project's public benefits, resilience to flooding, and capacity- to adapt to climate change impacts." The analysis in this Chapter focuses on the policies set forth in the Climate Change section of the Climate Change Bay Plan amendment as they apply to development of the 2007 Master Plan within the BCDC's jurisdiction. The policies related to tidal marshes and tidal flats, safety- of fills, shoreline protection and public access are not applicable to the development of the 2007 Master Plan. _additionally, the San Francisco Bay- Conservation and Development Commission helps to protect coastal and marine habitats, urban waterfronts and coastal watersheds throtigh the administration of the Ocean Protection Council, and implementation of the California Coastal Trail and the San Francisco Bay- Area Water Trail Plan. Sea level rise is a dynamic process and BCDC is actively working to develop strategies to help protect the shoreline and resources. The BCDC has identified key strategies in protecting the shoreline and bay- ecosystem. • Preserve and enhance habitat in undeveloped areas that are both -vulnerable to future flooding and have current or potential value for important species. • Include a buffer, where feasible, between shoreline development and habitats to protect wildlife and provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises. • Design shoreline protection projects to include provisions for establishing marsh and transitional upland vegetatiort as part of the protective structure,wherever feasible. • Conduct comprehensive Bay sediment research and monitoring to understand sediment processes necessary to sustain and restore wetlands. 4.3-4 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IN ■ Update regional habitat conservation and restoration targets to achieve a Bay- ecosystem resilient to climate change and sea level rise. The BCDC«%ill continue to oversee and implement sea level protection along the shoreline and identify adaption measures to address sea level rise as a result of climate change including developing a long-term strate to address sea le�-el rise and storm acti�-it< and other Bay-related impacts of climate change. Strategies include providing a well-planned development that responds to the impacts of climate change and hiture sea level rise; collaborating with the Joint Policy- Committee and other agencies to integrate mitigation and adaptation strategies at a regional scale; coordinating the adaptation responses of multiple government agencies; analyzing and addressing equity-issues, and continuing to support research, provide recommendations and requirements to guide planning and permitting of development in areas titilnerable to sea level rise; and developing policies that promote wetland protection, creation, enhancement and migration. Local There are no local laws that pertain to land use/planning with respect to sea level rise that are applicable to the project. 4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Analytic Method The analysis in this section focuses on the consistency of the project that would occur within the BCDCs jurisdiction with and- applicable land use plans, policies, or regtilations, specifically- the Climate Change section of B(.DCs Climate Change Bad-Plan_amendment. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2012 CEQ_N Guidelines _appendix G. For purposes of this SMEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact on land use/planning if it would do and-of the following: ■ Conflict with any- applicable land use plan, policy-, or regtilation 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 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 MEIR with respect to potential Land Use impacts. City of South San Francisco 4.3-5 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IIIIIIIIIIIIII Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold 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? Impact 4.3-1 The project would not conflict with an 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. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant As required bv CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), this SMEIR discusses any inconsistencies between the project and applicable regional and local plans." _although analysis of the potential of sea level rise to affect a project is not required per CEQA (Ballolia Vetlalids Lalid Tnut r. City of Los Ai geler, 201 Cal.App.4"' 455 (2"d District, Ct. App. 2011), the predicted sea level inundation was identified to assess the applicability-of the Bad-Plan amendments. The predicted sea level rise for the HEIR Study Area was mapped and illustrated in Figure 4.3-1 (_areas of Inundation for Climate Change and Sea Level Rise). The areas of potential inundation are identified by the current BCDC 100-foot buffer zone and the future BCDC 100 feet. The outer perimeter line represents the 50-year inundation boundary- based on the 16-incli sea level rise. The 50-year inundation is confined to the outer shoreline boundary. Currently, there are no stationary buildings or proposed buildings that will be erected in this area. Further, the current BCDC 100-foot buffer zone offset shares the same boundary-. This is an area zoned for no constriction. The area of impact is thus confined to the existing shoreline. The future BCDC 100-foot buffer zone offset represents the predicted 55-inch sea level rise in the year 2100. Tliis boundary- parallels the existing BCDC. boundary- but is shifted inland by approximately 100 feet. The area of inundation primarily impacts the shoreline, landscape zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard. The inundation does not impact any of the existing major infrastructure facilities including any existing or proposed building strictures. The inundation is confined to the outer perimeter including the landscape buffer areas, impervious area including the southwestern edge of Forbes Boulevard and parking lots. The HEIR Study does not pose a threat to the environment as a result of development and expansion within the areas potentially affected by sea level rise. _analysis of the applicable BCDC Climate Change Policies with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan that would occur within the BCDC's jurisdiction are presented in Table 4.3-1 (BCD(. Climate Change Consistency_analysis). As previously described, this analysis focuses on the BCDC's Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment policies as they apply to development of the 2007 Master Plan. The policies related to tidal marslies and tidal flats, safety- of fills, shoreline protection, and public access are not applicable to the development of the 2007 Master Plan. U�As previously noted,the 2007:XLEIR considered consistency with all other relevant plans,policies ,,irld regulations. 4.3-6 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR �G I i l^�1r:{;t l o�f�o ke41'r' 11Pdy 's"y n`carp nu�r b� .4� PARKING GARAGE BLDG#SM m, �a BLDG#9 81JOG#T BLDG#6 BLDG#S s BLDG#9 iSLOG#3 BLDG #4 fir BAT9MEWWHOM GGMBITtlOM 1 BLDG#BX BLOB f ma SLOG #1B h #BB BLOB EXISTING $LBO PABMMIMO #12 b" STBNICTBBE ' BLDG#13 BLDG#22 SLOG #14 PS-2 BLDG #45 4r k NOTIES: rbi N YeI1Nf6l 1 PJ ifs"kai n" th" qA ,IVl r .m, a c rNrhH dro, a.mr rvaP F �1�MUgtmd I,dOV"� g!i . M . a p���P�0hi��Iw�tlhitzma M nar X10 Niitli�cu;✓d w .a (R .s: ry NORTH Source:San Francisco Bay Conservation&Development Commission;BCDC,2010. scare Figure 4.3-1 Areas of Inundation for Climate Change and Sea Level Rise ATKINS IN Table - Change Consistency BCDC Climate Change Policies Project Consistency Policy la The findings and policies apply only to projects and Applicable. The outer perimeter of the MEIR Study area falls activities located within the following areas:San Francisco Bay, the within the 100-foot shoreline band and would be subject to the 100-foot shoreline band, salt ponds, managed wetlands, and BCDC's Climate Change Policy. This area includes the shoreline, certain waterways, as these areas are described in Government landscape zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Code section 66610, and the Suisun Marsh, as this area is Boulevard and parking lots. described in Public Resources Code Section 29101. Policy lb For projects or activities that are located partly within the areas described in subparagraph a and partly outside such area, the findings and policies apply only to those activities or that portion of the project within the areas described in subparagraph a. Policy 2 When planning shoreline areas or designing larger Consistent. No new development is proposed within the mid- shoreline projects, a risk assessment should be prepared by a century and the 100-year flood areas as illustrated in the qualified engineer and should be based on the estimated 100-year inundation maps. This area includes the shoreline, landscape flood elevation that takes into account the best estimates of future zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard sea level rise and current flood protection and planned flood and parking lots.Thus,the project is not a"larger shoreline project" protection that will be funded and constructed when needed to and does not trigger the requirement for a risk assessment. As provide protection for the project or shoreline area.A range of sea such, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan is consistent with this level rise projections for mid-century and end of century based on goal. the best scientific data available should be used in the risk assessment. Inundation maps used for the risk assessment should be prepared under the direction of a qualified engineer. The risk assessment should identify all types of potential flooding, degrees of uncertainty, consequences of defense failure, and risks to existing habitat from proposed flood protection devices. Policy 3 To protect public safety and ecosystem services, within Consistent. No new development is proposed within the mid- areas that a risk assessment determines are vulnerable to future century and the 100-year flood areas as illustrated in the shoreline flooding that threatens public safety, all projects—other inundation maps. This area includes the shoreline, landscape than repairs of existing facilities,small projects that do not increase zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard risks to public safety, interim projects and infill projects within and parking lots. No new development would occur in an area existing urbanized areas—should be designed to be resilient to a vulnerable to future shoreline flooding that would threaten public mid-century sea level rise projection. If it is likely the project will safety.As such,full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan is consistent remain in place longer than mid-century, an adaptive management with this goal. plan should be developed to address the long-term impacts that will arise based on a risk assessment using the best available science- based projection for sea level rise at the end of the century. Policy 4 To address the regional adverse impacts of climate Not Applicable. No significant habitat occurs within the potential change, undeveloped areas that are both vulnerable to future flood areas. This area includes the shoreline, landscape zones, flooding and currently sustain significant habitats or species, or storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard and possess conditions that make the areas especially suitable for parking lots. ecosystem enhancement, should be given special consideration for preservation and habitat enhancement and should be encouraged to be used for those purposes. Policy 5 Wherever feasible and appropriate, effective, innovative Consistent. The full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would sea level rise adaptation approaches should be encouraged. maintain a buffer between potential areas impacted by sea level rise and new development. The existing buffer zone (100-foot offset) from the shoreline shows compliance with the BCDC requirements. The future (2050) buffer zone may impact the outer perimeter of the Genentech site including landscape buffer areas and impervious areas. The zone was established to help protect and preserve the shoreline and protect wildlife, thereby providing appropriate setbacks as recommended by the BCDC.As such,full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan is consistent with this goal. City of South San Francisco 4.3-9 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Table 4.3-1 BCDC Climate Change Consistency Analysis BCDC Climate Change Policies Project Consistency Policy 6 The Commission, in collaboration with the Joint Policy Not applicable. BCDC will collaborate with the Joint Policy Committee, other regional, state and federal agencies, local Committee(JPC); other regional, state,and federal agencies; local governments, and the general public, should formulate a regional governments; and the general public to formulate a regional sea sea level rise adaptation strategy for protecting critical developed level rise adaptation strategy. This policy does not pertain to shoreline areas and natural ecosystems, enhancing the resilience specific projects. of Bay and shoreline systems and increasing their adaptive capacity. The Commission recommends that: (1)the strategy incorporate an adaptive management approach; (2)the strategy be consistent with the goals of SB 375 and the principles of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy; (3)the strategy be updated regularly to reflect changing conditions and scientific information and include maps of shoreline areas that are vulnerable to flooding based on projections of future sea level rise and shoreline flooding; (4) the maps be prepared under the direction of a qualified engineer and regularly updated in consultation with government agencies with authority over flood protection; and (5) particular attention be given to identifying and encouraging the development of long-term regional flood protection strategies that may be beyond the fiscal resources of individual local agencies. Ideally,the regional strategy will determine where and how existing development should be protected and infill development encouraged, where new development should be permitted, and where existing development should eventually be removed to allow the Bay to migrate inland. Policy 7 Until a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy can be Consistent. The Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would completed,the Commission should evaluate each project proposed incorporate adaptive management approaches to future in vulnerable areas on a case-by-case basis to determine the development, including maintaining a setback between the project's public benefits, resilience to flooding, and capacity to shoreline and future development. Build-out of the 2007 Master adapt to climate change impacts. The following specific types of Plan would be consistent with the goals of SB 375 as Genentech projects have regional benefits,advance regional goals,and should provides for an aggressive gRide TDM program, as well as being be encouraged, if their regional benefits and their advancement of served by existing public transportation.Additionally, the perimeter regional goals outweigh the risk from flooding: of the MEIR Study Area adjacent the Bay is currently and will a. remediation of existing environmental degradation or continue to be utilized as part of the Bay Area Trail. As such, full contamination,particularly on a closed military base; build-out of the 2007 Master Plan is consistent with this goal. b. a transportation facility,public utility or other critical infrastructure that is necessary for existing development or to serve planned development; c. a project that will concentrate employment or housing near existing or committed transit service(whether by public or private funds or as part of a project),particularly within those Priority Development Areas that are established by the Association of Bay Area Governments and endorsed by the Commission,and that includes a financial strategy for flood protection that will minimize the burdens on the public and a sea level rise adaptation strategy that will adequately provide for the resilience and sustainability of the project over its designed Iifespan;and d. a natural resource restoration or environmental enhancement project. The following specific types of projects should be encouraged if they do not negatively impact the Bay and do not increase risks to public safety: 4.3-10 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IN Table - Change Consistency BCDC Climate Change Policies Project Consistency e. repairs of an existing facility; f. a small project; g. use that is interim in nature and either can be easily removed or relocated to higher ground or can be amortized within a period before removal or relocation of the proposed use would be necessary;and h. a public park. Policy 8.To effectively address sea level rise and flooding, if more Not applicable. BCDC will collaborate with the Joint Policy than one government agency has authority or jurisdiction over a Committee(JPC); other regional, state,and federal agencies; local particular issue or area, project reviews should be coordinated to governments; and the general public to formulate a regional sea resolve conflicting guidelines,standards or conditions. level rise adaptation strategy. This policy does not pertain to specific projects. Although sea level rise has a potential to impact the campus outer perimeter, these impacts would not affect any project infrastnicture or project occupants. Thus, the nature of the impacts (to parking areas primarily) do not suggest that the project conflicts with the Bad- Plan, as amended, and would not result in a conflict with a plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an impact to the environment. The existing and proposed BCD(. 100-foot 50-rear inundation nuns parallel along the perimeter of the Genentech property. The existing buffer zone (100-foot offset) from the shoreline shows compliance with the BCDC requirements. The future (2050) buffer zone may impact the outer perimeter of the Genentech site including landscape buffer areas and impervious areas. The zone was established to help protect and preserve the shoreline and protect wildlife. The future buffer zone may impact the outer perimeter of the Genentech site including landscape areas, and parking lots. The project will not pose an impact to resources or non compliance with the city- specific plan, zoning ordinance or coastal programs. Therefore impacts would be considered less than signllcant. No mitigation required. 4.3.5 Cumulative Impacts Threshold 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? Global climate change could alter the local hydrology and change the seasonal and annual rainfall and runoff patterns in the Bad- _area; rainfall and runoff could increase, decrease, change in pattern and frequency, or not change at all. This would be a regional phenomenon, not just limited to the City. Thus, the cumulative context for sea level rise is the San Francisco Bay-_area. Sea level rise-induced flooding, in combination with other hydrologic factors such as 100-rear flood and additional stormwater runoff, could affect the upstream flow gradients within creeks and channels citvwide, causing greater upstream flooding and groundwater-surface interactions such that storm drainage system capacity could be compromised. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to predict how cumulative conditions could be affected, given the current model constraints to accurately predict end- of-century conditions as it relates to cumulative development and sea level rise. For portions of the City's City of South San Francisco 4.3-11 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR shoreline that could be susceptible to sea level rise where there is existing development, potential flood risks are expected to be addressed throtigh adaptive management strategies. The City- will comply with BCDC's Climate Change policies as presented in the October 2011 Bay- Plan amendments and tape action to protect existing shoreline developments. As discussed in Policy 6 of the Bad-Plan amendments, BCDC.will collaborate with the Joint Policy Committee UPC); other regional, state, and federal agencies; local governments; and the general public to formulate a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy. Among other things, the regional strategy will determine where and how existing development should be protected. Adaptation actions that protect existing development and infrastructure include protecting shorelines. The City will participate in the planning efforts by BCDC and the JPC. For new development, those locations subject to sea level rise, the Citywotild review development proposals in order to ensure they- address any impacts relative to a 16-inch rise by mid-century-, and would address end-of-century- sea level rise throtigh adaptive management strategies. The shoreline portions of the MEIR Study Area could be titilnerable to sea level rise between 2050 and 2100. This would occur regardless of whether full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan occurs, and there are no aspects of the project that would change flood potential due to sea level rise because no new structures are proposed within the mid- or long-term flood areas. None of the development contemplated under the 2007 Master Plan is within BCDC's jurisdiction concerning shoreline protection for sea level rise. The BCDC has recommended that Bayfront developments consider a 16-inch sea level rise valtie by 2050 (mid-term) and a 55-inch sea level rise valtie by 2100 (long-term). _although no specific design criteria related to sea level rise have been formally adopted by federal, state, or local agencies, the 2007 Master Plan has been designed to account for sea level rise as part of the planning process to prevent future flooding or loss of infrastructure resulting from shoreline erosion. Building structures are generally stationary-whereas shoreline protection and storm drain systems can be adapted to adjust with the changes in sea levels. Because the project is consistent with the requirements and policies set forth in the BCDC Bay Plan with respect to sea level rise, it would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this cumulative impact is less then signl6c2nt. No mitigation is required. 4.3.6 References Ballolia VetlalidsLalid Tiu.str. City ofLo.sAi,ele.s. Gal: Court of_appeal, 2d_appellate Dist., 3d Dig-., 2011. Genentech.A ilwal Repot 2011: Geiielmech Eacilities Teia Year 1 aster Mali, May 2011. San Francisco Bay-Conservation & Development Commission. Linz a, vith a R.r , Bury: Vulhoability a/ld, A(,L�I�rtioa ira,Sara F-ialitl'Sco Bury alid oa its,Shoelirae, as revised throtigh September 23, 2011. Bay Plan amendment No 1-08 (Climate Change Bap Plan amendment), October 6, 2011. South San Francisco, City-of. ,South,Sara Fizrnei.seo Aluraitipal Code, 1986 (and amended periodically). 4.3-12 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR . . 4.4 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 4.4.1 Background This section provides an update of the traffic analysis that was conducted for the 2007 HEIR, by re- evalhiating transportation and traffic impacts with information from the recently completed Traffic Stud- for the East of 101 _area: In the City- of South San Francisco (2011 East of 101 Stud-), dated October 21, 2011, and other information that has become available since certification of the 2007 HEIR. The goal is to determine whether the new information provided in the 2011 East of 101 Study indicates any new or substantially-more severe significant traffic impacts than were identified in the 2007 HEIR. 4.4.2 Introduction This section of the SMEIR analyzes the potential environmental effects on transportation/traffic from implementation of the project SamTrans submitted a comment letter addressing transportation/traffic in response to the NOP circulated for the project, requesting that potential impacts to public service be included in the new traffic analysis. Impacts to roadway conditions present below in Section 4.4.5, includes all modes of transportation, including public transit. The California Department of Transportation also submitted a letter requesting a complete analysis of the build-out conditions and cumulative impacts for all stud-intersection scenarios including Sylichro analysis. The original traffic impact analysis prepared by Korve Engineering and is contained in _appendix E of the 2007 HEIR. This SMEIR section anal-zes the potential for adverse impacts on existing and future transportation and traffic conditions resulting from full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, approximately 2,708,100 square feet (st). The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with increased number of vehicle trips and traffic congestion, exceeding established levels of service of the county congestion management agency. The following issues were determined not to be potentially significant in the project's IS and do not require additional analysis in the SMEIR;a change in air traffic patterns; potential conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation; increased hazards due to design features, and emergency access. Data for this section were taken from the East of 101 Study prepared by TJI�1f for the City. The purpose of East of 101 Study was to evalhiate traffic impacts, identify- short-term (2015) and long-term (2035) roadway and circulation needs, determine potential improvement measures beyond the 2007 East of 101 Planned Improvements, and identify- any- critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on- going planning process. _additionally, data was taken from the Genentech HEIR Update Traffic Impact _analysis prepared in June 2012, and included as _appendix E (Genentech HEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis). Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.4.6 (References). City of South San Francisco 4.4-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4.4.3 Environmental Setting IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Comparison of Traffic Study Assumptions Following the approval of additional projects in the East of 101 _area, the City- commissioned a traffic stud- conducted by TJI�1f Transportation Consultants in October 2011 to analyze area traffic patterns for the City-. Consequently, an update of the 2007 HEIR traffic analysis was necessary-. Given the programmatic nature of the 2007 Master Plan, the precise timing of the "as needed" construction of new facilities leading to build-out could not be precisely predicted. Therefore, in terms of land use assumptions, the 2007 :NIEIR modeled full build out of the Genentech campus by 2015, whereas the 2011 East of 101 Stud-assumed full build-out by 2035. This assumption was designed to address the rate of growth in the HEIR Stud- Area in 2009 (when data for the East of 101 Sthidv was collected), which occurred at a much slower pace than anticipated in the 2007 HEIR In addition, Genentech has demolished approximately 281,288 sf of existing stnictures since 2009 when the East of 101 Sthidv was initiated (resulting in fewer net square feet of development). The 2011 East of 101 Sthid- assumes a slower growth rate than what was analyzed in the 2007 HEIR. This is due to a steady decline in development in both the HEIR Stud-Area and the Larger East of 101 Area than was projected in the 2007 :NIEIR. Table 4.4-1 (Comparison of Genentech Development _assumptions in the 2007 HEIR and 2011 East of 101 Study) shows the differences in land use assumptions between the 2007 HEIR and the 2011 East of 101 Study, as well as the actual levels of development as they occurred for the sake of comparison ("Actual" Genentech Development). Actual development continues to lag and reflect a slower rate of build-out than assumed in either traffic stud-. Furthermore, although the 2007 HEIR 2015 _analysis and the 2011 East of 101 Study 2035 _analysis both assume that the Genentech Master Plan District will be "built out," the 2011 East of 101 Study 2035 _analysis also assumes a higher level of development for the rest of the East of 101 area by 2035, due to new development plans that were not known for the 2007 :NIEIR. Therefore, as shown in Table 4.4-2 (Comparison of East of 101 Area Land Uses in the 2007 HEIR and 2011 East of 101 Study-), the 2011 East of 101 Study assumes a much higher level of"background" growth at build-out. The 2007 HEIR utilized a base year of 2005/06, with most of the traffic count data having been collected in December 2005, with the existing land use data reflecting the size (in square feet) of Genentech in 2006. Existing (2009) Plus Full Build-Out of 2007 Master Plan CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 directs that an EIR "must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. These environmental settings will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant" (CEQ_A, Guidelines j�, 15125(a)). The Supreme Court further stated that "Environmental conditions may vary from rear to rear and in some cases it is necessary-to consider conditions over a range of time periods. In some circumstances, peak impacts or recurring periods of resource scarcity- may be as important 4.4-2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR ill �ii ill Egli 1 . . Table Comparison of Genentech - - . . - . . the 2007 and 2011 East of 1 Actual Genentech 2007 MEIR 2011 East of 101 Study Development for Traffic Analysis Year/Location Studies Base Years Assumptions Assumptions Existing 2006 — 2,828,366 — Actual 2007 2,815,000 — — Existing 2009 — — 3,573,188* Actual 2011 3,291,900 — — 2015 — 5,995,545 4,168,188 2035 — — 5,995,545 SOURCE: City of South San Francisco,Master EIR for Genentech Corporate Facilities Research&Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update,SCH#2005072165 (certified March 2007);TJKM Transportation Consultants,Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area:In the City of South San Francisco (October 2011). Genentech has demolished approximately 281,288 sf of existing structure since 2009 when the East of 101 Study was initiated. Table Comparison of • of 1 - • Land Uses in the 2007 MEIR • • 2011 East of 1 Study Size of Genentech Growth in rest of 2011 East Growth Analysis Overlay Area(so of 101 Study Area(so Years Source 2007 MEIR 2006 to Table 5-1,on page 32 of the 2007 2015 Assumptions 5,995,545 +4,558,551 2015 MEIR 2011 East of 101 Study 2035 2009 to Table IX on page 39 of the 2011 Assumptions 5,995,545 +10,830,602 2035 East of 101 Study SOURCE: Atkins(2012). etivironmental1v as average conditions. N\Iiere environmental conditions are expected to change quickly during the period of environmental review for reasons other than the pro)ect, project effects might reasonably- be compared to predicted conditions at the expected date of approval, rather than to conditions at the time analvsis is begin" (CoNIN1111?itiei for a Better E ilz)olipleiat r. ,Vouth Coast Air Quality, tali r,euleiat fflit7zet, 48 Cal.-lth 310, 328 [20101). Therefore,while the SMEIR uses a baseline of 2011 (date of publication of the NOP), the East of 101 Stud- Existing Conditions _ rtalysis relied on data collected in 2008 and 2009. The purpose of this SMEIR is to evalh>ate traffic impacts based upon new information and the East of 101 Stud- represents the new information considered; therefore, 2009 is used as the baseline for the impact analysis for the Existing Plus Project analysis and the remaining development capacity- in the Genentech Master Plan District. The Existing (2009) Plus Project Scenario assumes 2009 conditions with the additional traffic that would result from full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District. City of South San Francisco 4.4-3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR IIIIIIIIIIIII Existing Conditions Study Intersections The 2011 East of 101 Stud- utilized traffic count data from May of 2008, and June of 2009, and the existing land use data for 2011 East of 101 Stud- represents the size of Genentech in 2009. Most of the counts were taken in 2009, and therefore its Existing conditions traffic anal ysis reflects 2009 conditions. Twenty- one intersections were evah>ated as part of the traffic analysis conducted for this SMEIR. The stud- intersections are listed below in Tahle 4.4-3 (SMEIR Stud- Intersections), and are also shown in Figure 4.4-1 (SMEIR Stud- Intersections), while Figure 1. 1-2 (E istin Conditions [2009 �ti%ithout Pro)ect] Turning Movement Volumes) shows the Existing Conditions (2009) turning movement volumes for the study intersections. Table Intersections In 2011 East of 101 # Intersection Traffic Control(2008) In 2007 MEIR? Study? 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal Yes Yes 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal Yes Yes 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal Yes Yes 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard" Signal Yes No 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Two-way stop Yes Yes 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal Yes Yes 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal Yes Yes 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal Yes Yes 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp One-way yield Yes Yes 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal Yes Yes 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbormaster Road/Forbes Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue One-way stop Yes Yes 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive One-way stop Yes Yes 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal Yes Yes 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal Yes Yes 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal No Yes 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal No Yes SOURCE: Atkins(2012). 'Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard was not included in the East of 101 Study,but was evaluated in the 2007 MEIR;therefore,is included in this updated analysis. 4.4-4 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR A�F etiti o 0 Genentech Triangle Oyster Point SISTER-CITIES BLVo �o Land Use Land Use h P F N/LLS 1 0 TFRgNs g` aF o 2 BLVD. OYSI ER POINT �9 5� 4a e 20�� 21 5 x'24 aLJ° o�� 3 4 Ro 5a� 101 gyp. I�� �� 6 z BLVD. ��� MILLS R AVE, GRAND AV 12 g ADEN E 8 13 14 AVE, 9 E Pte,. �00� � � .GRAND 4i %%%%%%%%%%% tee' �P = a 11 L.HARRIS 1 IRIS AV E. < � 1 .TQ m 1 1 11 17 18 LAWRENCE F 11 q AVE. 1� MITCHELL AVE, �0 a m � w m 19wONDER- RNIY. Z PJ� NORTH ACCESS NORTH ACCESS RD. z O LEGEND o Study Intersection o XX AM Peak Hour Volume (XX) PM Peak HourVolume Weekday ADT Counts 4y --- Future Driveway �s NORTH Source:TJKM,2010;Atkins,2012. Nor o scnL Figure 4.4-1 SMEIR Study Intersections ATKINS N H (n V W Z 1 0 5 1 LL rH A Wv O v � � O�y I ��p 3Atl CIl31j3 LL11 CF)_NRH D ROL HVe.g 0 unaoeavN W 1 p a U I x a s a c M _ o �' a� ° � >o W anbs;�onenu �pdblpE NV E.. b p0 gyp. Q� 0 � JE N3lINl-I �b Q]1b/y IVVS S� YP O�ypa` 3�b.Y-Idbvy F �Cj �10 O ti j��(6Sa)y4 0 P2 O O > ? �l m ''1t ° > r� zz�. 5} 0 m 1 C w $ v o O F. T A A a 3 V N Np 1 ^M V yam P vim u �((sD roo6 a 0� �(69ZS6 06 1��(6S6)E4Z OLL)) > —(a£)vi m� F(68Z)6bZ oC7 �1� EEE)�E� OIm �A1�(6L 6)69 O �1�1�(SfLa)bSL ° ��r ° �eoe))�aa� s>)se ((ro))zz��� o (acn)zse� �m (s>�J ZOi���/� CQ o (zoe)ss�� �a0 (as6)roo6� 0 = - o > > El o Q o E O o " �—(sro)6c o ✓�( �slz�,a �zele, �l��(aa)Lro .� loot)SZS r��sa�6�e > z)y6E «)se (a6)ssz�q > �eseJ R aka �S �m_ �tb)gS� d Q (O�E)666� a-A2 r memory o-. = aN _ _ a� Lu a m 191 �. h e� 60l N nm d •� 9l >O' O 0110 VrI anti o1¢� / �Nm r2ry leol (D o Q �slz'�w /n¢ °gym `Ji _�.,s °a N��,� sw o 1S c°- ��`,+ „t Z �lS 7ssF/sF b v a�n 0 w O p Cl UPS .> it vM —N 16}-lZo r L (8S m^ 7k Sk w Co 0 1 �J c_ O O y O ll�J O O O + O 91 �O F♦ [Y] �(4L6)Z9 EE R} C9EY) m Q d�Z 99)9990 L j (ZdSJ�09 m H —m � r r �O C a - H aIa We—gIsboszoom ill �ii ill Egli 1 . . Table 4.4-4 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Existing Conditions [2009 Without Project]) identii ies the AM and RNI pear hour LOS. Without Table 4.4-4 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-EAsting Conditions (2009 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour # Intersection Traffic Confrol Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 26.3 C 25.2 C 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal 33.1 C 24.8 C 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal 13.1 B 55.9 E 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 29.2 C 22.6 C 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 26.8 C 30.1 C 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard(1) Signal 24.1 C 29.6 C 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Two-way stop 28.7 D 15.9 C 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal 29.3 C 16.7 B 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 41.8 D 32.6 C 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 6.5 A 3.5 A 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp One-way yield 18.4 C 10.4 B 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal 19.4 B 13.5 B 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 24.6 C 22.2 C 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard Signal 17.2 B 33.1 C 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue One-way stop 9.3 A 15.5 C 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive One-way stop 23.2 C 19.3 C 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal 37.3 D 34.3 C 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 33.7 C 43.8 D 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal 31.4 C 26.2 C 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal 11.5 B 12.4 B 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 14.3 B 19.0 B SOURCE: Atkins(2012) (Synchro output is included in Appendix E). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. a. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard information from the PRDMEIR,Table 4.7-2 on page 21. b. All other intersections from East of 101 Study,Table Iv on pages 22,23. Under Existing Conditions, all signalized stud- intersections operate at acceptable City- standards of LOS D or better except for the Dubuque venue/US 101 Northbound and Southbound Ramps intersection (LOS E during the RNI pear hour). _also, under Existing Conditions, all unsignalized stud- intersections operate«%ith an acceptable minor approach service level of LOS D or better. City of South San Francisco 4.4-9 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4.4.4 Regulatory Framework This section provides a summary- of federal, state, regional and local regilations designed to address traffic impacts within the Bay- Area and the City- of South San Francisco. These regulations are unchanged since the 2007 :NIEIR. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Federal There are no federal regulations regarding transportation effects that apply-to the project. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII State There are no state regulations regarding transportation effects that apply-to the project. Local San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan Roadway System The City-/Count- _association of Governments (C/CAG), as the Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo Count-, is required to prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Program (C1IP) on a biennial basis. The purpose of the C:N P is to identify-strategies to respond to future transportation needs, develop procedures to alleviate and control congestion, and promote countywide solutions. The CMP is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( ITC) planning process that includes regional goals, policies, and projects for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The 2011 C1IP, which was developed to be consistent with 1ITC's Transportation 2035 Plan, provides updated program information and performance monitoring results for the C:N P roadNvav system. Near the SMEIR Stud- _area, the C1IP roadNvav system includes the US 101 segments only. The level of service (LOS) standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo Count- C1IP street network vary- based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the count- border, the LOS standard was set as LOS E, in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing LOS in 1991 baseline was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS in the 1991 baseline was predicted to be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. The C1IP standard for the US 101 stud- segments in the HEIR Stud- Area is LOS F (C/CAG 2011). The East of 101 Stud- utilized the C:N P standards in its analysis of the US 101. City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management The City-of South San Francisco Mwiicipal Code (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management) requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily- trips, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, implement Transportation Demand Management (TDNI) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The purposes of the TD:NI ordinance are as follows: 4.4-10 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR ill �ii ill Egli 1 . . ■ Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development, pursuant to the city's police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. ■ Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the city of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. ■ Reduce drive-alone commute trips during pear traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. ■ Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in Nvays to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. ■ Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. As a result of the TD1I measures imposed on larger nonresidential projects, the analysis prepared for the 2011 East of 101 Stud- assumes a 20 percent reduction in pear vehicle traffic generation rates by 2015 and a 25 percent reduction in pear vehicle traffic generation rates by 2035 for office and research and development land uses. The stud- also assumes a 15 percent reduction for manufacturing land use for both by 2015 and 2035. South San Francisco has a "menu" of potential TD1I programs, each with a specific number of points that relate to the program's effectiveness. Examples of TD1I programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities. Genentech's Transportation Demand Management Genentech's TD1I program, named gRide, provides a variety of flexible and convenient programs and services to get employees to and from work, as well as around campus. Genentech offers employees several programs as alternatives to commuting by private automobile. TD1I policies and programs are outlined in the 2007 Master Plan. The objective of TDI programs is to reduce vehicle trips by incorporating project components that encourage increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Genentech has made public transit access a priority throtigh dramatic increases in Ge11e11Bus service, and continued shuttle services to Caltrain and BART stations. hey elements of Genentech's TD:NI program include City ordinance—required measures, annual surrey monitoring, and triennial reporting. The plan has a variety of infrastructure and incentive-based measures that encourage all forms of alternative mode use such as carpools, vanpools, transit and shuttles, bicvcling,walking, and telecommuting in accordance with the City's menu of TD:NI programs. Other measures include an expansive commuter and internal shuttle program, a daily- commute allowance stibsidy program, a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program, preferential carpool parking, showers and bicycle facilities, commuter incentives, and a number of on-site amenities designed to support car-free employees. Although not a formal TD:NI plan measure, an important feature is the modest parking availability planned to discourage single-occupancy vehicle (S()y� use. Genentech offers fifteen GenenBus routes, which include two Caltrain/BART routes; four San Francisco routes; six East Bay- routes; and three Peninsula/South Bay routes, and GenenBus ridership is City of South San Francisco 4.4-11 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR over 2,800 rides per day. Additionally, Genentech recently introduced an intra-campus bike share program provides more connectivity for employees, further encourages gRide participation, and supplements the shuttle system. Participation in alternate transit modes has increased over 23 percent since the program inception in 2006, and a surrey completed in October 2010 indicates that Genentech has been able to maintain the 33 percent alternative mode use attained for 2009 (Genentech 2011). Genentech currently markets its TD:NI through promotional programs and a comprehensive transportation intranet site. As required by the Section 18.2 of the TD:NI Program, Appendix D of the 2007 Master Plan, a TD:NI Annual Summary Report, prepared by an independent consultant, is annually submitted to the City (Genentech 2011). 4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Analytic Method East of 101 Study Assumptions Utilized for this Analysis The 2011 East of 101 Stud-utilized a long-term analysis year of 2035, and also assumed several planned capacity improvements will be made between 2005 and 2035. The East of 101 Stud- also assumed implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 2007 MEIR. These improvements were factored into the year 2035 traffic model and are assumed as part of this analysis. The 2011 East of 101 Stud- also assumed that Genentech's TD1l program would be able to achieve a 25 percent reduction in peak hour traffic generation for office and R&D land uses, and a 15 percent reduction in peak hour traffic generation for manufacturing uses in the year 2035. This TD1l rate is based upon the City requirements as well as the 35 percent reduction in peak hour traffic generation that Genentech is currently achieving throtigh its TD1l program, and represents a conservative estimate of Genentech's TD1I program. In order to determine potential impacts resulting from full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District, the following scenarios from the East of 101 Study were utilized: ■ Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project)—based on recent traffic counts and field surreys, this scenario includes approximately 3,573,188 sf of existing development within the Genentech Master Plan District as analyzed in the East of 101 Stud-. ■ 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Pro)ect) Assumes full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District, as well as build-out of the East of 101 Area as analyzed in the East of 101 Stud-. For the purposes of this SMEIR traffic analysis, tvo additional scenarios were deg-eloped in order to determine if build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District would result in new or more severe impacts than identified in the 2007 :NIEIR: ■ Existing Plus Project Scenario—This scenario assumes 2009 conditions with the additional traffic that would result from full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District. 4.4-12 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR . . ■ 2033 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Pro)ect)—This scenario includes full build-out of the East of 101 Area, but does not include new development in the Genentech Master Plan District. As previously stated, for the purposes of traffic impact analysis, this SMEIR evalh>ates the remaining development capacity- within the Genentech Master Plan District, which is approximately 2,426,812 sf (i.e., the difference between the level of existing development in 2009 assumed in the East of 101 Study and full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan). For the purpose of the traffic analysis, the "project" is assumed to be the planned growth at Genentech Master Plan District between 2009 and 2035, as shown in Table 4.4-5 (Planned Growth in the Genentech Master Plan District). This SMEIR uses the year 2035 for full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District and the East of 101 Area to be consistent with the evaluation prepared for East of 101 Study. Table Genentech - Land Use 2009(square feet) Build-Out(square feet)b Net Change* Office 1,008,801 21632,000 +1,623,199 Lab 1,012,674 2,000,000 +987,326 Manufacturing 1,482,213 1,046,000 -436,213 Amenities 69,500 322,000 +252,500 Total 3,573,188 6,000,000 +2,426,812 SOURCES: a. City of South San Francisco,East of 101 Study(October 21,201 1),Table IX(Planned East of 101 Developments by 2035). b. 2007 Approved Capacity under Master Plan/Genentech Master Plan District. While the SMEIR uses a baseline of 201 1,the East of 101 Study Existing Conditions Analysis relied on data collected in 2008 and 2009. Consistent with the East of 101 Study,2009 is used as the baseline for the impact analysis for the Existing Plus Project analysis and the remaining development capacity in the Genentech Master Plan District for this SMEIR. Project Trip Generation The resulting net change in vehicle trips traveling to and from the Genentech Master Plan District in the AM and RNI pear hours is shown in Table 4.4-6 (Pro)ect Trip Generation [het Increase in Vehicle Trips] Genentech Master Plan District). As previously stated, a key assumption in the estimation of vehicle trips generated by the project is that Genentech will be able to achieve the target travel demand management (TD1I) vehicle trip reductions as established I)y the City-. The City- has mandated a 25 percent reduction I)y 2035 for office and research and development (R&D) land uses. Mixing different land uses in close proximity will also contribute to a reduction in the number of vehicle trips generated. For example, a Genentech employee who walks from their office to one of the on-site restaurants for lunch, as opposed to getting in their car and driving to an off-site restaurant. Project trips were distributed based on the same percentages used in the East of 101 Saidy. The trip distribution assumptions were made in consultation with City- staff and are a refinement of the assumptions contained in the East of 101 Study. City of South San Francisco 4.4-13 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Table 4.4-6 Project Trip Generation (Net Increase in Vehicle Trips)—Genentech Master Plan Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Growth 2009- Trip Trip Trip 2035 Rate Rate Percent- Rate Percent- (square TDM per per age per age Land Use feet) Reduction KSF KSF in,out In Out Total KSF in,out In Out Total Office 1,623,199 25% 4.94 0.77 87, 13 1,087 162 1,250 0.58 17,83 160 781 941 Lab 987,326 25% 3.28 0.48 83, 17 393 81 474 0.37 16,84 58 307 365 Manufacturing -436,213 15% 3.25 0.62 78,22 -211 -59 -270 0.62 36,64 -97 -173 -270 Amenities 252,500 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,426,812 1,270 184 1,453 121 915 1,036 SOURCE: Atkins(2012). Existing Plus Project The Existing Plus Project scenario was created from the Existing Conditions (2009 Without Pro)ect) scenario that was conducted for the East of 101 Study. The number of vehicle trips that would be generated by build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District in the AM and PM pear hours was estimated using the trip generation rates and trip distribution percentages from the East of 101 Study. Project-generated vehicle trips were added to the Existing Conditions turning movement volumes, and are shown in Figure 4.4-3 (Existing Plus Project Turning Movement Volumes). Table 4.4-7 (Pear Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Plus Project without East of 101 Planned Improvements) shows the resulting LOS (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Plus Pro)ect). However, it should be noted that this analvsis is hypothetical because the actual build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District is anticipated to occur incrementally as business conditions require approximately over the next tvo decades. _additionally, the Existing Plus Project anal-sis does not include the committed East of 101 improvements identified in the 2007 MEIR (and shown in appendix E of this SMEIR). Therefore, this anal ysis should be used for informational purposes only-. Under Existing Plus Project, all studv intersections operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: • Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the PNI peak hon>r • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive—This intersection would operate at LOS F in both the AM and RNI peak hours. • Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AEI peak hon>r • Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AEI peak hon>r • East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overerossing—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AEI peak hour 4.4-14 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR M y (n 1 V W z o Z - 4 � cc 4�o4 0 � � U y�J �neb1ba ll,�� 7 goy � �"p_ 3nu a�3ij3 uii � unaoeavN W Ta p n d yM anbs;�onenu �pdbl pE NV E.. b p0 gyp. Q� 0 � JE N3lINl-I �b p31b/y IVVS S� YP O�ypa` 3nb.Y-Idbvy F � Q m � vt O 0 C 00 00 rom m 7k v �1 7k v ��1� from F, sm ee � o u v 6eVO L O'90 9 'sq a-°Q I1 em u>0 e �2 sm o(� 111 o0 ��yy r 10 o=m�♦ L o vm sm ��r va� bm� �� va0 zm� go o "r as a O � a� mU mm Q A 9 M A N $ N 1`- Bm " LID oaf �h em° oE� `� S tm G� �iiya � LID WI m _ 1, v�oem2� [m vmo bm va Lm� ITT�� vm 8m y If 0 a CO) obi T bm BB - o y a� c0 a N a > � o �� �r — e � d o > o-0 ��l M� or o '�1j.t� o �� �t t z �, a �r w o a �l �► . �. `— Jlpm gab bay 'Z� 1� �' $" LL w a m o ee 70 _a A v s _ m a dl ti��m. o o w 0 9 ►L o e o Sm��ti �>TZ F Q 9�� `7 ITT �u ee or 4m Z ae we—q I sbosz000. N I ® p U U LU U U- U U co U Q co m U 0 Q co 0 0 U co 0 0 0 o = w v ' a aN O M co O Lo O (O oO L, r N O lf) M M V N (D 2 LO M (O M N • U N N V N M M O M I— N M M M M N� M v u 0 � a � 'a m o w w U U w Q U w U m Q Q o U U m U- 00 (o I-- W lf) Lo (o O O N �,.) N M I-- V M l!') (O M M M (O Lo Co O V O N N LO r__ M I-- M N N CO N N (o N I-- N O N M M co W h V) � o Y 0 V 2 O N W O (O (O O I'- (O Lo V LO N LO M M co N V O Q • X11 l!') V l!') N O O l!') (O N �,.) O M N M l!') O V M (O N O m N O LbO � W N o = Q U U m U U U D U 0 Q U m U m Q U D U U m m ug 2 O M ' N W '7 � M W Lo V V (O N m N M I� V U? M N M N N N N N V C O • Q O Q CD- Po h U_ a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 >, a3 a3 a3 A a3 a3 a3 �+ �+ a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 Q C C C C C C O C C C O C C C O O C C C C C X LM w w LM w LM w LM co LM co 0 co co c co co co co co co co c O O O Ln Ln cEa o a i ri) O c`a Q E N CL O z O > E o m o cc ° o o NU ° m > O c`a O -o a) o • > p m m -0 ` O0 CC :3 0 E > i c a) n o m p� c -o 0 0 co• U a�i ° cEa 0 > c a�i a�i Q c�a m Q a) ° N rn a3 v c� ` c:3 ca > Q Q ` ->O m o > =c is rn O D c� w o a) C13 c a`) a c`a c`a o a) a) c�a c�a C 7 w (D = Q C 7 cL>a >> c`a c`a p U in a3 aa) m Q C7 C7 a'a Q a) call) a>i N Q LU o o � � o a) a) a) a) a) 0 0 U o o o a) (3 a > m m � a) > > m m O a) .> Q Q Q Q Q > = c c c LL _0 _0 _0 _0 _0 o o c ) E- E-0 0 m d d d > m m N U vc) U N is a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a) O o o a in z C� C7 C7 C7 C7 Q C cn • �k Q N M V cn LcO n (O -I�2 W O O :3 E p I� W� O� O c 5 cn >, :3 >, >, :3 � a3 a3 ca ca ca O , , U> N n O O O C 11 3 w w w w w a U U U N O p U N U C� Table Updated 2035 Long-Term • - Conditions (With Project) • • East of 101 Planned Improvements* 2035 Plus Project(includes East of 101 Traffic Planned Improvements) Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour # Intersection (2035) Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 46.4 D 45.3 D 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal 45.2 D 67.2 E 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal 36.5 D 41.6 D 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 217.0 F 133.8 F 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 136.2 F 38.5 D 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard- Signal 257.8 F 209.5 F 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Signal 6.3 A 8.2 A 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal 28.1 C 21.1 C 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 85.2 F 61.2 E 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 10.7 B 13.8 B 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp One-way yield 11.8 B 8.5 A 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal 22.3 C 16.5 B 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 173.4 F 61.1 E 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard Signal 90.6 F 88.0 F 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Signal 10.9 B 15.8 B 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive Signal 9.9 A 21.1 C 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal 33.4 C 65.4 E 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 19.9 B 36.8 D 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal 62.2 E 49.0 D 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal 123.4 F 149.9 F 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 185.0 F 21.5 C SOURCE: Atkins(2012). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. 'The East of 101 Analysis was updated to include the 475 Eccles Avenue project "Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard was not included in the East of 101 Study,but was evaluated in the 2007 MEIR;therefore,is included in this updated analysis. ■ Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue-This intersection would operate at LOS F in the AEI peak hour Note that with inclusion of the East of 101 Planned Improvements, tvo intersections that showed sib mficant impacts in the "Existing; Plus Project" analysis, Dubuque _eve/US 101 Ramps, and East Grand/East Grand Overcrossitig, would perform acceptably-. The remainin.; four intersections with si.mficant impacts would still perform unacceptably-and are included in the list albove. 4.4-18 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR ill �ii ill Egli 1 . . 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) As previously- described, the East of 101 Stud- provides anal ysis of the 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Witli Project) scenario. In the East of 101 Stud-, this scenario assumes frill build-out of the Genentecli Master Plan District, as well as build-out of the East of 101 _area. Based on consultation with the City-, the analvsis for this SIIEIR was updated to include the 475 Eccles _venue project. Wliile the 475 Eccles Avenue project has not been approved at this time, the City has begun the environmental review and permitting process. It is anticipated that the 475 Eccles Avenue Project would be completed by 2035. The land use and trip generation for the 475 Eccles _venue project is shown in_appendix E. Figure 4.4-4 (2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [\'ith Project] Turning Movement Volumes) shows the intersection turning volumes at all stud- intersections, and Table 4.4-8 (Updated 2035 Long- Term Cumulative Conditions [\'ith Project] and East of 101 Planned Improvements) identifies the AM and PSI peak hour LOS with the East of 101 Planned Improvements. Under 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Pro)ect), the following intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS: • Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the PSI peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and P1I peak hours. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. • Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and P1I peak hours. • Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PSI peak hour. • East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PSI peak hour. • East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/ Forbes Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM and P1I peak hours. • Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the PSI peak hour. • South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and P1I peak hours. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) In order to identify- and- significant impacts due to the full build out of the 2007 Master Plan, Atkins conducted a 2035 Without Project analysis. The 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) scenario was created from the 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) analysis that was conducted for the East of 101 Stud- and described above. To derive the 2035 Long-Term City of South San Francisco 4.4-19 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Cumulative Conditions (Without Pro)ect) traffic operations, vehicle trips generated by the build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District«%ere subtracted from the 2035 With Project turn volumes. These volumes are shown in Figure 4.4-5 (2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [Without Project] Turning Movement Volumes). Table 4.4-9 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [\'ithout Project]) shows the resulting LOS, both with and without the East of 101 Planned Improvements.66 As shown in Table 4.4-10 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [\'ith and Without Project] [Includes East of 101 Planned Improvements]), under 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [\'ithout Project], all study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the East of 101 Planned Improvements except for the following nine intersections: ■ Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and RNI peak hours. ■ Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive—Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. ■ Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the RNI peak hour. ■ Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue—Expected to operate at LOS E during both the AM and RNI peak hours. ■ East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. ■ East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the RNI peak hour. ■ South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On- and Off-Ramps—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. ■ Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the RNI peak hour. ■ Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2012 CEQ_A, Guidelines _appendix G. For purposes of this SMEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact on transportation/traffic if it would do and-of the following: 66 City of South San Francisco,East of 909 Tran,�pol-ta7yon ImprolementPlan, City of South Francisco Amended General Plan Policy 4.2-I-6 (updated and amended December 2003). 4.4-20 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR V y (n 1 V z 1 E A c x x° LL G Y Y < � W A d N ? iii w • 0 b 1 r y2 J J1ba/f ll/,� �Oy �"V_ 3nu a�3ij3 uii N O t L - y LO hN e 5 O unaoeavN W � Ta M anbs;�°nenu � �Odbiy VENV t.. J e VV Cl) V O JE N3llyl-I �b Q]1b/y IVVS N S� YP F � Q m Q 03ll24)EE )(1142125)) 7O vk Q "<JB S\�1•h�/? BL£<�se 6f°2 7O V k a Q v> (6 Z)OB L��o+I n R/ V Z m� 2�1Ni,��R3 l 9.7I 0( 11. 5) (4W O 211l0: O Nam N l,, ro O > m °�•° 158) T m m 40(53) 272(1,711) u ���nz(1?16) MMm u-°Q� o �ry(zOsLZ)c LLS Z L >p b 69L�L =m f°(ZZL)L)b bbs S� L )E)s 6OL SLZ Sb o 99 > ( L)`0( 0 > � EUu ° . �Vb1 Z �a0(bzE)boL� Q Z W N? > 7 m it b �'—(6LL)cz6 o i�sy£ S4L ., ~(BLE))g (� 1'+y }(6S L)6L o 2 S BSI (ZLL)SEL v (486)86? LC—A � a w � a a° \m M o-\M ^Q ��1) ry by >K O 6l r um u n ` u 0 "> o—VU v ouz£�o �a °wo �9y .�d £ `c� 0 UU m £bJ�!8 � og292 (tcL) m ms♦l O O 9SB O O >Z N m C m o- v 06Z� W 36198)oNy S��Xm N 5 �O �6 a - s aews yoe—q l eeeszoom Lo u) LA 1 V W z 1 E E A c . . _ x x° LL G Y Y < � W A d N > lid w • 0 _ Gl � %��� d �o> v"°_ 3nb as3ij3 u1i ;J, v a s� O �bb � ti��0� dyOH V ab° c V unaoeavN W > Ta f6 �jdQ A j° C anbs;�°nenu F �Odbiy jO J e b 031b � JE N3lIN�-� NIVVS M O °�yJa` 3nb.Y-Idbvy F � Q m Q o ) 18119) it m rfl9 7k v ry Im 't v NC I%X010) Om �j��N�j�)11030) O� rfbJ9S� h�yL oa �+ OZ ii 1171ii'' f (stLJ(o R ts� /J� m C O w N 0 O > b a E 104175) v rn K rv� a3i 247(972) l n n :.m=- �- «m L(SL)SL �n ' �(a£)vz m� sazsbz °� °—=m �l�.l�(sLL)69 °r sL£bsL ° ol0)Z Pazjo > (eoe))� —r )se ° » (b)zz� tU2 m T LJb�f b m (s>y z,rt �- a�i Q 0 foes)eo�� a��i a O(es�i)oo r �� —iN C — m — O Q N cw O o N D � M 7k 7k d�_ �m maN bS)98Z 7k « ° �� Ljf sJ i \o o�� �—(ttt)q .°Cj �1��♦(aa)tb o o szssAy �(zul m 7, (abe)L L L -----, m ?� f off (£z)zL—A tU2 fnf ° a e-=j w � c e- > 9, g\ e 1�e b >s `o � ,'4 _ Mme' to � e � e` u Q z Ac f�ba I " C7 ti°`L01 :nr� 0 w 2 m v 1^4� u �,(N/ �t" „ r° u o aN+ fSl O� L �+ F �LLIO (4L6) o ) +R} 0; C m blf o\��� bjbC)ssf2 (9£(LL)ZbL—y \� ��•Z �—(S9)9SSE L L j (SL�t)6� v ^q°�, o ^o`1^ C C w C O C a — aewswe—q eeeszoom N � Q U W m Q m 0 I..L m m 0 0 0 I..L m ® O 2 a LO O O) (O V O O N LO LO N N co O N I— V V V O I— W (O oO N (O M oO LO I� (O M oO V 'CFO) I� LO co N N r— N LO W LO LO e • G) G G ® a i • o o p 0 U U LL. LL. LL. Q U W m m U w W Q Q U m W W W o ae N 2 a W W O M O LO l!') (O W (O l!') M (O V (O N M co -C Q Ni I� M O W W N O O (O M O N LO co • 3 V N N LO M M V N (O N LO O O CO (O LO (O • N • ? Q 0 LL. 0 LL 0 U U W m m W LL U LL LL LL 0 LL 0 O � 2 a V V (O N O N — W LO O LO Lr) W N O O O N V oO co (O ' O (O I— O N N O) r -� 2 V W V O V N (O I— LO N W m W LO W V G G a 'a p0 U LL. LL. LL. m U W U U LL. LL. Q W 0 U W W W O = w . N O 2 O LO M O O LO N Co N V co O LO O I� • t a W W O O W ' O O O LO (O M N M 3 Q V N N LO LO co (O N co O O co co N (O I— (O Q a) � U O` a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 A a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 a3 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C O 0 O LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LM L L L L L L L L L L L o � 0 a w U Ln cc • U n E 0 > Q > E O z ° E ° m o -a 0 0 • O U G) m a ri) >° o a3 = a) i a) C3 O :3 a O C>m > a) .> ° c N Q c m E D c c > °° a3 Q a—>i o L�La ° o ° > c a) a) Q La > a) a) a) N U °o � O::D > Q Q o c 0 0 j C13 O O U-0 in a3 cn a3 a3 0 °—� a3 a3 O w C� = Q C� Q > > z m Q C� C 7 M � � � � � Q °) °) a—>i a—>i O '5 = N 0 0 a) o o N w c c c c c N o p � N U ° ° ° -2 > > > > > > > > m m m° m° o U a) m a) m m O • C O O . a) > > LL > a) ¢ > O O Q 2 2 .C O O ¢ O O O C O m d a) d d m m 6 N U C N N aS aS aS aS aS N Q Q 7 • a`) aa)) CS i a n � 7 7 Q > � : i) n n CL O = o CL CL a3 a3 a3 ian 3 i(n u o o o 0 O O (D LL Q Q U w w w w w a co co O O U v) �k N M V LO (O I— co O O N M W O O N O o o a� N E p i U U CIO G V) D • O 0 0 W 0 LL. 0 LL Q U W m Q m W I..L m O W 0 0 LL U 0 CL 2 a o • 2 O CO N (O W LO N N W l!') LO oO V oO O o) LO M � M co (o M (o oO N (o M V N U • a` LO c 'a M O 0 D D D U- U- U- Q U m m m U m m m Q U m W LL U- p N N Y � a a • 2 V N in O N oO W M (O O V O N O X • Q X11 (O l!') m cN M LO (O OO lf) O N ! O O 6 M O N N oO LU a V V M N N N oO N O M (O � Ln • h I Q 0 Q D D D W U W Q U W m Q m 0 U- m m 0 0 0 LL m le � a � • 2 O LO O O (O V O O N Lo LO N N M O V O V O r— N W (O r— W N W (O M Lg (O oO (o I� 2 V In M N I— N In lf) oO l!') M V O � LO C • O C N Q D U U W W W Q U W m m U W W Q Q U m W W W N • O > • 2 O W W O M O l!') l!') co � W (o l!') m O V (O N M M V I— M l� M m V W N O O� co • Q V � M O N LO M N N (O l ) M co !') co L • U • LD 0 � is is is is is is is is is is a is is is is is is is is is is � c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c a o o � LM LM LM LM LM LM IM IM IM cc IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM O � c I � N • C� I I sz • E � O ° > m > a3 O z a°) I c(a m o o 0 C/) m 0-1 o: o> 0 = C13 c�a :3 c�a :3 o ° rn m > `o °� > ° m m • v m z Q m > z a� a� O o >LL a�i 0 a3 ca O ° > a co >a3 m .� > Q Q C� `o �o � m C� a� v O LU a`� o 0 is a3 2 ca `o in a3 rn a3 a3 0 a3 a3 O w C� = Q C� Q > > ° ° 4 0 m Q C7 C7 c°a > > D O O C:3 C:3 0 O O uJ O O m N co > > m m > > ¢ -6 :3 :3 > O O O O O O O O Q 2 2 O O m d d d m m m d N ON N U d o a`� a a`� a`� D aa)) o o a in C� C 7 (D (D (D a`5 • Q • Q -2 1:5 in i>n o ca ca ca ca ca o o o >, O O O 0 U- Q Q w w w w w a C/) C/) O O U a ® • U = 10 _ = v N �k N O N M V Lf2 O N O O 0 00 ill �ii ill Egli 1 . . • 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 inchding mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highway-s and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit • Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established bv the count- congestion management agency- for designated roads or highways The City-uses the following criteria to determine whether a project results in a significant traffic impact at intersections: • Degrade a signalized intersection from LOS_�,B, C, or D to LOS E or F. • Cause the level of service at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E under future baseline conditions to deteriorate to LOS F. • Increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by fibre or more seconds (attributable to project generated traffic) at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or F under future baseline conditions. • Degrade an unsignalized intersection at one or more approaches to worse than LOS D as a result of project generated traffic, and if Galtrans signal warrants are met (i.e., if traffic �-ohunes along the major and minor streets require a signal). • Increase the average vehicle delay- by fire or more seconds at the worst approach of an unsignalized intersection that operates at LOS E or F under existing or future baseline conditions, and if Galtrans signal warrants are met. 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures This analvsis assumes compliance with the 2007 HEIR mitigation measures. _additionally, the East of 101 Stud- also incorporated these mitigation measures into the future (rear 2035) analysis. The following_ mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 HEIR to reduce traffic related impacts: A11-1.7-1(a) Oyster Poilat Bowler eradl t 101 XB Ola-p au p: ■ Ca eate r 1 lition rl»e.itboura 1 afht-tur is brie. 11111.7 1(b� Qyster Poi atBoulerm'dlI;T,V 101 XB O a-Ramp: • Add ala additional brie ola laoathboulad Dubuque Arelaue bet»vela the t V 101 Famp.i iraterreetiola alid Oyster Poilat Boulerm'd. Reeonfguae the laoathboulad 6��Pm ach to Oyster Poilat Bowler era'd to p of ide m v e cIll ire left tur is blaes, gala e cIll rir e tha lloh bane arad1 m v eNelu.rir e afht tuna lakes-. As pant of this- afidelair,; eliulinate the left tuna brie ola the southbouladl Dubuque Ar elaue 6rpp v ach to the t V 101 Ramps hater ectiora ))hiclr .i ea r e.i uli ai v era ehou.i e frtilities) valid alloaa, southbound left turia.i fivul the southbound thaHugh lalle. This )fill alloaa p lifl'ola of fire full laoathbound tiarel Mies ola Dubuque Arelaue bet»eela the laoathboulad Off- Ramp interreetiola valid Oyster Poilat Bowler era'(1. • A(11*11 t.i f n�al tiulil,. 11114.7-2 Qyver Poi lit Bowler era'1/Gate)rpry Bowler era'(1: ■ Cae�rte�rra �r�1�lition�rl tha�u,h l�rrae ora aae.itboura�l OyiterPoiratBouler�rar1�r��a��r�lr. City of South San Francisco 4.4-27 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 11111.7 3 Oyitei Point Boulez,m d/Gull Dail e. • Videia liw thbound Gull Dire to poll 1e my left-tunic kwe,i alid one thnoT,hl�r,ht-,Ai ed kwe a/ld a(1*11v.i*/Ia/tinli l,; • ENiSti 1, .io/ia/nlodl ficrtio i. 11111.7 1 GullD�zrelFwbei Boulermd: • The eti7.rtiil, ))e.itbou ail .rhar vd t1V u,h/gr,ht-t1ww lalie .Rill be �ecoraf,uwed1 to be a q*9ht-tuwia only lalie; • The»ertbou ail�ioht-tun is nlor enleiat.i ill hal e all or ei l6rp pha,e)zth the.i outhbou a(,l nlor enleiat; • The .routhbounrl �ioht-tun is nlor enleiat .ihall hale all or o l6�pha,e ))ith the ea,tbouiadl left-tun is phase. 1111-1.7-5 Ailpo� Bouler�r�,1/G��xia(,lAreiaue: • Re-.rtiipe etiz.rti 1, .routhbou arl Ahpwt Boulelm'd �ioht tunic lalie to a char vd, thmlloh-�ioht lalle alid routhbolwid.h vvd thmli hlleft lalie to a left tuwia lalle • Videia eavbou ail Gull l Areiaue to add two left tunic lalie.r;�e-.rtiipe the ea,tboundl thmll hlleft Av eel lalie to a thmugh lalie alid eavbound q*ght tunic lalie to.Av ed thmllohl�ioht lalle • Nolide a thh'd left-tunic i s the )),eitbou ail 6��pm ch glad, �e ii t tiylc . ti,rff e o i »,eitbou ail G alid Avenue • ENiti 1,Sr'gli rl nlodl ficrtio a 11114.7-6(r) EavG alid Arenue lHarIgorVg),IF-wbe.rBoulez,m�1- • Videia »e.rtbou ail G alid Areiaue to add one additiolial thmllgh brine arid, one ad,(Jitiolial left tunra lalie. • Videra .routhbourarl Fwbe.r Boulelm'd to add one thmu,h lalie alid charl,e the etiz.itirl, .ihar vd thmugh-sight lalie to a sight tuww only lalie • Videra rawthbound Her bw, Vq), to add one t1nollgh lalie, one �r,ht tunra lalle arad1 change the eti.s-tirl,'s-&ned thnou,h-�r,ht tuwra lalie to a�r,ht tuna lalie to a thmlloh lalie ■ ��err .�7,n�rl in.it�rll�rtiora ■ S'z,n�rlirateitonneetiora in,utillatiora 11114.7-6(b) EavG alid Arenue lHarIgorVg),IF-wbe.rBoulez,m�1 ■ The eavbourad 6��pvrch to this iratevwtiora .Rill be videraed to allow, the e i,s-tirl, .ihar vd, the T,h/�r,httlwra line to be �eeoraf,lne1 into .ie r� rte the T,h rra1 �r,ht-tuna lalie.r alid routhbourad�r,ht-tunic oreil6xp. 11111.7 7 Eav G alid Ar eiaue/Allemli Avenue: ■ ��err .�7,n�rl in.it�rll�rtiora ■ S'z,n�rlirateitonneetiora in,utillatiora -11L114.7-8(r) Eav G alid Alvlwel G alidrierr,Dire: ■ ��err .�7,n�rl in.it�rll�rtiora 4.4-28 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR . . ill �ii ill Egli 1 ■ Add one .routhboulid Gazaradrieaa, Alelaue ar,ht tnw lalie; add, one laoathbouladl Gazaradrzeaa, Alelaue tharl lalie (nlo 7i1, b�atk to one lane gfter 110 f eta; le.itai e e ritboula 1 E tit Ga xaa 1 Alelaue to poll le orae 1efttua7a lalie alid one.rhalvd 1 ftlthmlloh lalie. ■ S'ioli�il intei t oliliectioli i11,u�illatiola. 11111.7 8(b� Eav G alid Ar vlwel G alidrze»,D�zr e: ■ The ale.rtboulad Air vd thmlighl� ht-tuwia lalie .Aill be �econf,glwv 1 into a q*ght-tuwia only lalie. The .routhboulid �ioht-tunic lalie »ould theia be able to become a five �i ht tunic, alid .ihall be rtaiped a.r.wch. There aeconf,gln ation.r aaould cau.ie the.routhboundl(opm ach to aegllhv leis avela time, t,7eatirl,Pole aa'rilable lvela time for the eartboundl(opm ach. lI114.7-9 NodueeAlelauelAiapoatBoulea�,(,1,1 Safi ateoArenue: • Videla )lertboulad Ahpwt Boulelm'd to Ladd one additional left-tua7a lalie glad, le-.itarpe the etir.rtigo thmliohllefti .A vd lalie to ca 1eft-tua7a lalie to Flake it a wal of thaee 1eft-tua7a lalie.i. • 1101ify, laoathboun�l Noduee Alelaue to baz 1, the .routhboulid 101 to e�artboula�l Aia oat Boulea ra 1 tazrffe to stop cat the intev bola to eliPin�ate the Pea,ia, �xaad1 aa,e�aria, eonflietr ola e�rrtboula�l Aia�oat Boulea�rav1 ■ Neaa .7,n rl in.rt rll rtiola lI114.7-10 ,South Ahpwt Boulea m'dl Gateaa q Boulea m d: • Videla e�rrtboula(,l Aiapoat Boulea�ravl to Ladd one additioiaal ar,ht-tua7a lalie;le-.itarpe the e z*,.ti 1, thmlighlleft Ai , r vd lalie to ca thmlloh lalie • Vzdeia htchelAlelaue to Ladd two additional thmll h faller a/ld ca ar,ht-tua7a lalle • Videla .routhbolllid Gatea),ay to Ladd one ar,ht tlnw lalie alid ch aa,e the etiz.rtial, .rhalvd thmligh- li,ht lalie to another ar,ht-tua7a lalie ■ Neaa .7,n al in.rt all atiola 11111.713 Aiapoa Bouler�ravl/Ga�xia(,lAreilueOff-Fame: • Noll le fair .rhaly eontaibutiola (gar detoWined by the City Eil,ineea) tov aavlr the ae-vlta e (iv onf,Pe) of the eartboulad Gaalad Alelaue 6��pv acl five Sara etiz.rtia?, eti lu.rile ar,ht t1a71 land alid ca .rhalvd thmll h/left tlnw lane to poll le Sara eNclu.rae left tlnw land alid, ca .rhaled, thmughl ar,ht tP7a lane. • Noll le fair .rhaly eontaibutiola (gar detoWined by the City Eil,ineea) tov aavlr the ae-vita e (leconf,uaz) of the .routhboulid Ahpwt Bouleamvl 6��pvach fioP all e z',rtirl, left, .rhaled, thmllghlleft tua7a, eNc111S71e thmllgh alid eNclu.rre ar,ht tua7a lane eonf,Patioaa to pmli le my eNclu.rile left tua7a lanes, aaa eNclu.rile thmlloh lalie alid ca.rhalvd thmliohl ar,ht tua7a lane. • A(yNiv.r7 al tiPi l,. 11111.7 11 Oyitea Poi at Boulez�,(,11 Ga/e)),ry Boulel m dl L S 101 ,SB Fly-01,o,Off-Raplp: ■ Aju.rt.i7,n rl tiPil,. ■ IPplePelat 1111-1.7-2. 11111.7-15 Oyitea Point Boulez�ravll Dubuque Ar eiluel t".,S'. XB 0/1-Ramp: ■ Noll le fair.rhaly eontaibutiola (a.r detowined by the City Ela,ineea) toll as 1r the a(iditiola of a woaad eNclu.rile ai,httua7a lane ora the)le.rtboula 1 OyrterPoilatBoulea as 1 as a 1. City of South San Francisco 4.4-29 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR ■ Iupleulerat�11�11-�.7-1(b�. ■ Ad#11v.i7 n�al tiulil,. 1111-1.7-16 Aiapoat Boulel'�aa,l/Ga�ila(,l Ar'elaue. • Iupleulelat ulea m es idelatified ila ulitz*g atiora ulea m e A 114.7-13. • Paolide fair shCaae eontaibutiola (as detowined by the City Eligineea) toarm'di all eNclu.rir'e ar,ht tuna blae ola the southbound Ahpw Bouler'm'd 6ppv ach to llillerAr'elaue. 1111-1.7-17 Oyster Poilat Borllerm'd/Dubuque Ar'elaue: • Iupleulelat ulea m es idelatified ila ulitz*g atiora ulea m e A 114.7-15. • Paolide fair shCaae eontaibutiola (as detowined by the City Eligineea) twraa'ds the ae-.rtaipe of the LS 101 XB Off-Ramp CppaoCach to DubuqueAr'elaue fmpl Cali e istill, e%'clu.7r'e left, shaaedl thmlighlleft valid eNclu.rir'e ai,ht turaa lane to p lide my eNclu.U'r'e left turaa lanes aladl ca shaaedl thmugh/ar,ht turaa lane. 1111-1.7-18 Xoathbound Off-Famp to Dubuque Ar'elaue: ■ Paolide Ca fair-shaae eontaibutiola, as (letoWinedl by City Eligineer, to p lis7ola of ca seeolid laoathboulid off-a amp line eonneetiola to the LS 101 Nwinlirae at the Dubuque Ar'elaue off- a amp. 1111-1.7-19 Southboula l Fly-Or'er Off-Rump to Oyster Poilat Boulel'Caa 11 GCate))Cay Boulelaa l: ■ Paolide fair shCaae eontaibutiola (as detoWined by the City Eligineo) to)),m'li the eon.rtarletiola of ca seeolid southbound off-a amp brie colmectio a to the LS 101 ulX*raline at the Oyster Poi lit Bouler'm'd off-a amp. 11114.7-20 Nw thbound off-a amp to,Vouth Aia�oa7 Bouler'm'dl Vo ido'colorL�ane: ■ Paolide Ca fair-shaae eontaibutiola twraa'ds the p lifl'ola of ca seeolid laoathboulid off-a app brie conneetiola to the LS 101 nlX*nline at the ,South Aiapoat off-a amp. (This uleasme i.r CabeCaCly p'qo Campled a.i paa t of the East of 101 upit�al inpavr'eulelat p qoa am). 1111-1.7-21 Xoathbound off-a amp to East Gazalid Ar'elaue/ENecutir'e Da ire: ■ Paolide fair shCaae eontaibutiola (as detoWined by the City Eligineo) to)),m'li the eon.rtarletiola of ca second laoathboulid off-a amp brie colmectio a to the LS 101 Nwiraline at the East Gaya adl Ar'e}arle Off a aylp. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Project Impacts and Mitigation Applving the City s traffic criteria, the traffic analvsis indicates significant impacts that would require additional mitigation above and beyond the planned East of 101 Area improvements due to fiill build-out of the 2007 Master Plan related traffic. The following describes the intersections that would have an unacceptable LOS in the year 2033 with implementation of the project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts and identifies the results of the mitigation measures. All identified mitigation measures would be included in the East of 101 Saidy Fee Program. The East of 101 Stud- Fee Program is an existing funding mechanism for development that occurs in the East of 101 _area. The East of 101 Stud- Fee Program is updated every fire rears, with the last revision occurring in 2007 and the City- is in the process of updating the 2012 East of 101 Stud- Fee Program. Through the East of 101 4.4-30 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR . . Studv Fee Program, development projects within the East of 101 Area contribute a pro rata share based on factors such as square footage and the t<pe of use proposed. The East of 101 Study Fee Program allows the City- to establish priorities for specific traffic improvements, and these improvements are implanted at the time the development occurs and thus, at the time of the anticipated impact. Genentech would contribute to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of the mitigation measures. Relevant identified mitigation measures will be implemented by the City prior to the constriction of eacli element of the 2007 Master Plan, as sclieduled in the East of 101 Area Plan and/or as actual area traffic warrants, within the Citv's discretion. There are time intersections where operations would experience a significant impact in 2035 after implementation of the current East of 101 Planned Improvements. This section describes the additional mitigation that would be required at these intersections in more detail. All the traffic mitigation measures will be incorporated into the East of 101 Program prior to approval of this SMEIR. Threshold 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 nonmotorized 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? Impact 4.4-1 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of signalized intersections to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/ US 101 NB on-ramp. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-ssgni&cantlevel. Assuming the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB Chi-Ramp operates at LOS C (27.8 seconds of delay) in the AM pear hour, and LOS D (50.5 seconds of delay) in the P:N1 peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS E (672 seconds of delay) conditions during the P1f pear hour. Tliis would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements, as well as the proposed mitigation measure 1111-1.-1-1,would reduce the project's impact. 1111-1.-1-7 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB Chi-Ramp: ■ The.f n�rl for the a fht tua is nlorenlerat for the as eitboura�l���a��r�lr .ih�tll be nlo�li f eel toga�r z�le�r p teeted or eal6xp for the a fht tuna (allo)red dlnil, the as e.itbourad tlmollgh aradl raoathbouradl tha ollgh phases) ■ Corareat one of the aae.itboura�l tha�u,h l�xnei to�r.ih�rae�l tha�u,h/rr,ht-tuna l�rne ira the P�11 As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure :NL\14.4-1. With implementation of these measures, and the 2007 HEIR mitigation measures 1111-1.7-1a and 1111-1.7-1b, operation at this intersection will be an acceptable LOS D (43.0 seconds of delay). Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. City of South San Francisco 4.4-31 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Impact 4.4-2 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue will operate at LOS E (63.3 seconds of delay) in the AM pear hour, and LOS B (17.4 seconds of delay-) in the I'M peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS F (183.0 seconds of delay) in the AEI peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the project's impact. 1111-1.-1-2 OyrterPoilatBoulermdlEecle sArelaue: ■ if"i�lera e�ritbouir�l���r��r�lr of Oy.iter Point Bouler�rrr1 to �re�rte .ilr�rre�1 tlrr�u,lr/rr,lrt-tuna l�rne, valid taco dedicated tlmollolr laliei Mitigation measure 11114.4-2 would require the new lane be carried through the intersection of Oyster Point/Eccles to the next driveway to the east (Monogram Biosciences), and a transition from 2 eastbound to 3 eastbound lanes between the Monogram Biosciences driveway and the Oyster Point/Gull Drive intersection. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Stud- Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure :NL\14.4-2. With implementation of this measure, operation at this intersection will be an acceptable LOS C (30.9 seconds of delay). Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-3 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard operates at LOS E (56.1 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (83.2 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS F (90.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. Tliis would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements, the 2007 HEIR mitigation measures 11114.7-6a and 11114.7-61), and the mitigation measure :NIM4.-1-3 shown below would reduce the impact. 1111-1.-1-3 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Wav/Forbes Boulevard: ■ Eartboulid Gnmd Arelaue slull be )fidelaed vNI my eartboulid tlmoligh laller to tlraee eartboulid thaou,h lalie.i 4.4-32 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR ill �ii ill Egli 1 . . • wl)bou ail Ha bor l q), Road, shall be Nlodl feed to t,7eate lanz rble lalies tl)at Meet tl)e follo»zip,: • In AW: one dedicated left-tur7i, my dedicated tlmollgh lalies, alid one (ledicrted, ht-tur7a bane • In P11: my dedicated left-tur7a lalies, one dedicated tlmoll , alid one shag vd, tlm u,hl� ht- tui7a bane • V outI)boulid Ha bor l q),sl)all be nlodl feed to t7 eate l anz able lalies tl)at Peet the follov i ,: • In AW: one dedicated left-tur7a lalie, one dedicated thmou,h lalie, alid my (ledicrtedl �i,ht- tur7a lalies • In P11: one .rh vvd thmou,hlleft-tur7a bane, one dedicated tlm u,h lalie, alid, my (Jedicrtedl Rio&-tur7a lalie.i Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-3 assumes that intersection splits are optimized to account for the new lanes. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor N\'av/Forbes Boulevard would be reduced to LOS D (45.1 seconds of delay) in the AM pear hour and LOS D (512 seconds of delay) in the I'M pear hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Stud- Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure :W114.4-3. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significan t Impact 4.4-4 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.44 would reduce this impact to a less-than significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo _venue will operate at LOS C (33.4 seconds of delay) in the AM pear hour, and LOS D (51.9 seconds of delay) in the PM peal; hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS E (65.4 seconds of delay-) in the I'M pear hour. Tliis would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements, the 2007 :NIEIR mitigation measure 11114.7-9, and the mitigation measure 11114.4-4 would reduce the impact. ��hll1.l l Produce venue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo venue: ■ On southbou ail 6rpp acl), t7eate one dedicated left-tur77 bane, my dedicated tlmoll h lalies, arid, one s&ned thmou,h/ io&-tur7a lalie Tliis mitigation would involve removal of the pork -chop islands, and signal masts, as well as re-striping. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue would be reduced to LOS D (52.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Studv Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure :NfM4.-1--1. Tlerefore, this impact would be considered less than significant City of South San Francisco 4.4-33 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Impact 4.4-5 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard will operate at LOS E (55.3 seconds of delay) in the AM pear hour, and LOS F (96.4 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour. Implementation of the project would increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by more than 5 seconds during both the AEI and I'M peak hours. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements and mitigation measure 11114.4-5 shown below would reduce the impact. 11L114.4-5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard: • The my Rio&-tuna lalie.i for.ioutl)boura�l T1'etenvi Boulelani shall be �edll ed to oiie q*9&-tuna lalie sand oreal6� afith the eastbouladl left-tuna lalie • Colareat the aaestboulid 6��pv ail alolig Oyster Poilat Boulelani fiom my tl)mllgh lanes to three thaorlgh lanes by eolareatir,aaertboluld rr,ht-tuna to a throu,h alid is-hired rio&-tuna lalie • Colareat the eastboulid 6��pvacl alol, OyrterPoilatBoulerm'd to one dedicated left-tuaia lalie, a rhaavd thaou,hlleft-tuaia lalie, one dedicated tlmough lalie, alid a shag vd, thaou,hl a ht-tuaia lalie Implementation of mitigation measure :W\14.4-5 assumes the elimination of the planted median on the east side of the intersection. After implementation of both the planned East of 101 Area improvements, and mitigation measure 1I1I4. 1-5, the impact at the Ch ster Point/Veterans Boulevard intersection would be reduced to less than significant. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard would be reduced to LOS C (32.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (54.6 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure :W114.4-5. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant Impact 4.4-6 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Witli the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard operates at LOS F (170.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (51.1 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS E (61.1 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. Tliis would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements and the mitigation measure 1I14.4-6 would reduce the impact. 4.4-34 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR . . 1111-1.-1-6 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard: • Alolig laoathboulid Gate)rg), Boulelani, Ladd ca seeolid dedicated q*ght-tuna lalle gild, ar*Ilv interreetiora .V)&s—c1)a1ige laoathboulid left to V)&Phase • Alol, southboulid Gateaa,ay BoIllelani, eaeate my dedicated left-turfs lalles, one tlmollgh lalle, sand one shaa eel tha of ghl� ht-tur is lalie • Alol, eartboulid East Gnmd Arenue, eolareat the dedicated Rio&-tuna lalle to a slug ed1 tlmough/rr,ht-tuna lalie. One shag vd throu,l)l rio t-tuna lalie, three dedicated through laliei, alid one dedicated left-tuaia lalie. _after implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard intersection would be reduced to LOS D (37.6 seconds of delay) in the AEI pear hour, and LOS D (37.0 seconds of delay) in the I'M pear hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-6. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant Impact 4.4-7 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard operates at LOS F (138.5 seconds of delay) in the AM pear hour, and LOS E (76.6 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS F (257.8 seconds) in the AEI peak hour and LOS F (209.5 seconds) in the RNI pear hour. Tliis would be a potentially-significant impact. 11111.1 7 Gull DazrelEoal)ei Boulelanl: ■ Alol, southboulid Gull Daire, caeate my dedicated left-tuaia laliei, alid one dedicated ar,ht-tuaia lane ■ Along eartboulid Foal)er Boulelani, t,7eate ca dedicated left-tuaia lalie, arid, three tlmollgh laliei ■ Along aaestboulid Eoal)es Boulelani, t,7eate my dedicated tlmollgh lanes, alid one dedicated ar,ht- tur7a lane (yield) Implementation of the 2007 HEIR mitigation measure :W\14.74, and the additional mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a LOS C (32.7 seconds) in the AM pear hour, and LOS D (51.0 seconds of delay) in the PSI peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Studv Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-7. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant City of South San Francisco 4.4-35 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Impact 4.4-8 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-8 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue operates at LOS E (62.6 seconds of delay) in the AM pear hour and LOS E (58.0 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS F (85.2 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. This would be a potentially significant impact. 1111-1.-1-8 AilpoaBouler�r��1/G��xia(,lAreiaue: ■ Alol, eastbound Gnmd Arenue, t7eate my dedicated left-tuna lalies, alid one (Jedicrted, ht- tur7a bane After implementation of the 2007 :NIEIR mitigation measure 11i114.7-13, and the additional mitigation measure, the impact at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection would be reduced to LOS D (54.4 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (45.7 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure :W\14.4-8. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant Impact 4.4-9 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-9 would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than- significant level. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this would remain significant and unavoidable. Witli the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard operates at LOS F (150.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (121.4 seconds of delay) in the I'M peak hour. Implementation of the project would increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by more than 5 seconds during both the AEI and I'M peak hours. This would be a potentially significant impact. 1111-1.-1-9 Oyster PoilatBoulelanilGate»,ry Boulelan,/: ■ Eavl)ound Qyver Poilat Boulelani: add a tlmol gh lalie to both eavl5oulad 6��pv rclres (fiom the LS 101 off rzrnl�, �x1a(,10y.iter PoilatBoulel�rr,1� Implementation of the 2007 HEIR mitigation measure :W\14.7-14, and the additional mitigation measure would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level in the AEI or PNI peak hour. It would remain a LOS F with 1023 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour, and LOS F with 111.3 seconds of delay in the I'M peak hour. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce 4.4-36 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR . . this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Threshold 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? Impact 4.4-10 Implementation of the project would 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. This is considered a potentially significant impact. As potential mitigation measures to reduce this impact would require approvals from outside agencies and are outside the City's jurisdiction, this would remain significant and unavoidable. The 2011 East of 101 Study analyzed Freeway Level of Service of US 101. The analysis assumes no future widening of the freeway- mainline segments and ramps. The purpose of the analysis was to highlight the expected level of service for freeway- facilities in the stud-area with the planned land use for the East of 101 _area, including full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. As shown in Table 4.4-11 (2035 Conditions Freeway Mainline _analysis) all freeway segments will operate unacceptalbly at LOS E or worse in all directions of travel during both peak hours under year 2035. Implementation of the project would contribute to the identified unacceptable LOS along the freeway mainline. Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway- and its close proximity- to surrounding development, such mitigation is not feasible. _additionally, sucli mitigation would be proliibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Finally-, implementation of such mitigation measures would be beyond the jurisdiction of the City-. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 4.4-10 is not feasible, as defined by CEQ A (see Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21061.1 [defining "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished ... taping into account economic ... and technological factors"]). Under CEQ A, the City- in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project (see CEQ_A, Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15021(d)). Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency-may reject the measure (see CEQ_A, Section 21081(a)(3)). Tliis is considered a potentially significant impact. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this would remain significant and unavoidable. 4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts The analysis in the preceding section tapes into account cumulative projects and background growth througli the year 2035. No additional cumulative analysis is required. City of South San Francisco 4.4-37 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR Table 1 • • •ns Freeway M• - Analysis 2035 with Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Volume Density Volume Density US 101 Segment Direction Lanes (vph) (pc/mi/ln) LOS (vph) (pc/mi/ln) LOS NB 4 9,449 >45 F 8,777 >45 F US 101 North of Oyster Point Boulevard SB 4 10,047 >45 F 7,930 36.7 E US 101 South Airport Boulevard NB 4 10,924 >45 F 8,874 >45 F to Oyster Point Boulevard SB 4 9,147 >45 F 9,967 >45 F NB 5 13,610 >45 F 8,772 29.6 D US 101/1-380 to South Airport Boulevard SB 5 8,623 28.9 D 11,907 >45 F SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants,Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area:In the City of South San Francisco (October 201 1) vph=vehicles per hour;pc/mi/In=passenger car per mile per lane;LOS=level of service Bold indicates unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions. 4.4.7 References Atkins. 2012. Gelielmech lIEIR t,�diteTtiff I�l yetAnilyus,June. South Sail Francisco, City-of. 2007. haste,EIR for Geyielmech Coipwate Facilities Reseal ch &Der eloppleiat 01,o1),DistlietE%pali.rioyi alid 1lavei Mali t,�dite. SCH# 2005072165, certified March 2007. TJK1I Tratisport<>tion Consultants. 2011. Ti iffe,Stu 1y ford.e E lit of 101 Aye is Iia tl.e City of,Soutl. ,S yya F7a72a7*Se0, October. 4.4-38 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15126 requires that all aspects of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of this analysis, this SMEIR must discuss (1) new or substantially- more severe significant environmental effects of the project that were not analyzed in the 2007 MEIR and new feasible mitigation measures proposed to minimize these effects, (2) new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented, (3) new or substantially more severe significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the project and were not analyzed in the 2007 HEIR, (4) growth-inducing impacts of the project that were not analyzed in the 2007 HEIR, and (5) previously identified and new mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects. In addition, this section also discusses CEQ_A, considerations for environmental effects for certain issue areas including cultural resources, and livdrology and water quality, about which comments were submitted during the NOP comment period. 5.1 NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED As discussed in Chapter 4 of this SMEIR, the project would result in significant impacts to construction and operational air quality- emissions and transportation/traffic with no available feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significance that were not previously analyzed in the 2007 HEIR Otherwise, information regarding the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the project is the same as discussed in the 2007 HEIR, and no new information has arisen that would affect the conclusions of the 2007 HEIR regarding significant and unavoidable impacts. That information is hereby incorporated by reference. 5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Information regarding significant irreversible environmental changes caused by the project is the same as discussed in the 2007 HEIR,which is herel)v incorporated by reference. No new information has arisen and no changes in circumstances have occurred that affect this analysis. 5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Information regarding growth-inducing impacts caused by the project is the same as discussed in the 2007 HEIR, which is herelby incorporated by reference. No new information has arisen and no changes in circumstances have occurred that affect this analysis. City of South San Francisco 5-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT _appendix B (2007 HEIR Mitigation Measures) provides a comprehensive identification of the adopted mitigation measures from the 2007 HEIR. _additionally, Chapter 2 (Summary-), Table 2-1 (Summary- of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures) identifies the new environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures identified in this SMEIR. 5.5 ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATION During the NOP comment period, comments «%ere received regarding potential impacts to cultural resources and hydrology and water quality-. These comments are summarized and responded to below. 5.5.1 Cultural Resources The Native American Heritage Commission (N AHC) sent one comment letter regarding the treatment of previously unidentified cultural resources and the appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts to any resources unearthed during project implementation. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply- to the project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As discussed in the 2007 HEIR, previously unidentified archaeological resources eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR may be located within the Study Area or its immediate vicinity during project construction. Construction of the project could result in ground disturbance associated with grading, excavating, and trenching, which could damage or destroy previously unidentified, significant archaeological resources. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describes the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be required to comply with the identified mitigation measures 1F1I4.10-1(a) and :FlI4.10-1(b). There are no changes to the project. Thus, the mitigation measures identified in the 2007 MEIR remain sufficient mitigation for potential impacts to cultural resources. 5.5.2 Hydrology/ Water Quality The San Francisco Regional Water Quality- Control Board (SFRNVQCB) provided verbal comments via phone communication with the City during the NOP comment period. This comment was regarding the change in the SFRNVQCB permits. Since the adoption of the 2007 HEIR, the California Regional Water Quality- Control Board San Francisco Bay-Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (1IRP) was adopted in 2009 and amended in 2011, and now includes Provision (13 (New Development and Redevelopment). The MRP corers stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City-, and Vallejo. The goal of Provision (13 is for the Permittees to use their planning authorities to include 5-2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 111 l! J 11 ill ill 1willi il ii e ® �y All appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater nuioff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. This goal is to be accomplished primarily through the implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques. Adherence to the AIRP and the goal of Provision C.3 would help further reduce the impacts related to hydrole<� and water qualit<. This new information does not therefore affect the anal sis or conclusions in the 2007 MEIR, or warrant further environmental analysis. There is no new information showing a new or more significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regard to hydrology and water quality-. There are no changes to the project since the 2007 AIEIR. The previously certified 2007 AIEIR adequately describes the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be required to comply with the identified project requirement PR 4.13-1(a) through PR 4.13-1 (b), and mitigation measures AB14.13-2(a) through AB14.13-2(d). Hydrolog and water quality- does not require further environmental review and is not analyzed in this SAIEIR. There are no changes to the project. Thus, the mitigation measures identified in the 2007 AIEIR remain sufficient mitigation for potential impacts to hydrole<g and water quality-. 5.5.3 Alternatives CEQ_A, requires an evahiation of the comparative effects of a range of reasonable alternatives that would attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant adverse effects of the project, including alternatives that are more costly- or could otherwise impede the attainment of the project's objectives. The 2007 HEIR evaluated a number of different alternatives to the 2007 Master Plan, including a no- project alternative and a reduced development alternative. Pursuant to CEQ A Guidelines Section 13162, no new information of substantial importance has become available showing either that (1) alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially- reduce one or more significant effects of the project, or(2) alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2007 AIEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, and (3) that the project proponents have declined to address the alternative. _accordingly, the analysis and conclusions contained in the 2007 :NIEIR remain adequate and there is no need for further environmental review in this SAIEIR. City of South San Francisco 5-3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6.1 LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS Table 6-1 List of EIR Preparers Name Issue Area/Role Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Susy Kalkin Chief Planner Girard Beaudin Principal Planner Linda Ajello Associate Planner Sam Bautista,PE City Engineer Steven Mattas City Attorney Genentech Shar Zamanpour Principal Planner John Flynn Senior Planner Andrew Keller Senior Planner EIR Consultant Team:Atkins Kim Avila,AICP Project Director,Technical Lead Julian F.Capata Project Manager,Air Quality Heather Dubois Senior Scientist,Greenhouse Gas Emissions Brad Lane Senior Planner,Traffic Mohan Garakhalli Project Manager,Traffic Joel Miller Document Production James Songco Graphics City of South San Francisco 6-1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR by r.. u II� ir♦ � Ol�lh OA. f ' ................................. December 21 , 2011 Prepared for Prepared by ATKINS � o CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UPDATE TO THE MASTER EIR FOR THE GENENTECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT EXPANSION AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE Initial Study Final Prepared for City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by Atkins 475 Sansome Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 941 1 1 December 2011 Sf-3084649 CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................................................I Environmental Factors Potentially Affected....................................................................................5 Determination...................................................................................................................................5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................6 EnvironmentalIssues.......................................................................................................................7 LAesthetics.........................................................................................................................................7 II. Agriculture/Forestry Resources.................................................................................................10 III. _fir(Qality.....................................................................................................................................12 IV. Biological Resources.....................................................................................................................15 V. Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................19 VI. Geology/Soils ...............................................................................................................................22 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................................26 VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials....................................................................................................28 LX. HvdrologS/Water QualitV...........................................................................................................34 X. Land Use/Plannitig......................................................................................................................-13 XI. Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................-15 XII. Noise...............................................................................................................................................-16 XIII. Population/Housilig....................................................................................................................51 XIV. Public Seri-ices...............................................................................................................................53 XV. Recreation......................................................................................................................................5-1 XVI. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................................55 XVII. Utilities/Service Svstems .............................................................................................................58 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance..........................................................................................64 References.......................................................................................................................................66 Appendices Appendi-X A California Natural Diversity Database Otitput Appendix B Historic Resources Records Search Results Figures Figure 1 Project Location and Regional Vicitutv..........................................................................................................2 Tables Table 1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan areas (st) .............................................................................................4 Table 2 SSFD Available Water Supplies (af-) ...........................................................................................................61 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the iii Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study has been incorporated by reference into the Notice of Preparation for this project. This checklist is to be completed for all projects that are subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ�). The information analysis and conclusions contained in the checklist form the basis for deciding whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a negative declaration (ND), or a mitigated negative declaration (1IND) is to be prepared. _additionally, the checklist shall be used to focus an EIR on the effects determined to be potentially- significant. 1. Project title: Master Environmental Impact Report Update for the Genentech Master Plan (2007) 2. Lead agency name and address: City- of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 lfaple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 3. Contact person and phone number: Mr. Gerry Beaudin,Principal Planner South San Francisco Dept of Economic and Community Development 650-877-8535 4. Project location: The Project is located along the San Francisco Bay- shoreline in the East of 101 area of the City- of South San Francisco. The EIR will address the 220-acre stud-area that encompasses the adopted (2007) Master Plan area as well as the Genentech Master Plan District (refer to Figure 1 [Project Location and Regional Vicinity]). 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City- of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 lfaple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 6. General plan designation: Business and Technology Park,Park and Recreation 7. Zoning: Genentech Master Plan District (SSFIIC Chapter 20260), and Parks & Open Space (SSFIIC Chapter 20.130) City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 1 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 I- W/0" .......... M', % Projec t Location 0 �,,I YX,Nows ........... A/1, N",I,/�, 2 Q, ��,,�,�ammwmwv ,"I,g Q s k k 00 7 4 �101 V, alp Ap E/M;;;/////"/"�',`,M. "'K �W ,MIQfi �O N11 1, Z Study Ar '7 ft ,M/ .......... pv, Inter -01/1"I T'I J// 14,L E fffff Figure 1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity ATKINS 8. Description of project(describe the whole action involved,including, but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary,support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation): The City- of South San Francisco is processing an application from Genentech to update the company's Master EIR (2007 MEIR) for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update, which considered the environmental impacts of development on Genentech's 220-acre campus area (2007 Master Plan). The 2007 MEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2005072165,was certified by the City- of South San Francisco on March 14, 2007, and may be found at littp://wel)link.ssf.net/wel)link8/Browse.aspx. The 2007 HEIR is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The CEQ A Guidelines require that except in limited circumstances MEIRs should not be used for projects described in the MEIR if the document was certified more than fire rears prior to tiling an application for a subsequent project ((.EQ_A, Guidelines Section 15179). The City is therefore conducting additional environmental review in order to supplement the Master Plan EIR so that it may continue to rely upon that document in its review of subsequent projects. The purpose of this Initial Stud- is to determine the scope of any additional review based on the standards contained in CEQ_A, Guidelines Section 15179. Under CEQ_A,whether additional environmental analysis is required depends on whether any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the HEIR was certified have occurred and whether any new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR becomes available. In addition, ('.E(_)-A, Guidelines Section 15179 incorporates the standards for supplemental environmental review under (.E(_)-A, Section 21166 and CEQ A Guidelines Section 15162. Supplemental review is appropriate if (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project or in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions of an EIR, or new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time an EIR was certified becomes available, alid (2) such changes or new information will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The 2007 HEIR evaluated a stud- area of approximately 220 acres, of which 160 acres currently- comprise the Genentech Master Plan District (then referred to as the "Genentech R&D Overlay District", and referenced herein as the Genentech Master Plan District) which is divided into the Lower, Upper, Mid, and West Campus neighborhoods. At buildout of the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech expected to almost double its 2006 size (from 2.8 million square feet [sf] to roughly 6 million sf) of office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking stnictures. This Initial Stud- analyzes the 220-acre 2007 Study _area, and focuses on changes to the regilatory requirements, changes in the circumstances that would occur with build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, and/or new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the 2007 HEIR certification. Table 1 (Existing and Proposed Master Plan _areas [sf]) shows the existing and remaining proposed development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District. No changes have been proposed to the 2007 Master Plan. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Table I Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas (sf) 2007 Genentech 2011 Existing 2007 Approved Capacity Remaining Development Capacity R&D Overlay Genentech Master under Master Plan/Genentech under 2007 Approved Master Plan/ District Plan District Master Plan District Genentech Master Plan District Land Area(acres) 125 162 200 38 Office 1,009,00 1,091,430 2,632,000 1,540,570 Laboratory 1,007,000 1,010,300 2,000,000 989,700 Manufacturing 724,000 1,046,900 1,046,000 -900 Amenity 75,000 143,270 322,000 178,730 Total Building Area 2,815,000 3,291,900 6,000,000 2,708,100 SOURCE: Genentech (2011). 9. Surrounding land uses and setting(briefly describe the project's surroundings): • The Oyster Point Marina Park;—The Marina is a combination of Coastal Commercial and park- uses, including site of the future South San Francisco Ferry Terminal, currently under construction. The Marina is directly north of the Genentech Campus. • San Francisco Bay- Trail—Portions of the San Francisco Bad- Trail, a mostly- contagious trail around the San Francisco Bad-, outline the coast around the Genentech Campus, providing recreational uses as well as pedestrian and bicvcle access. In addition, the San Francisco Bay- Conservation and Development Commission's (BCDC) jurisdiction and permitting authority embrace a 100-foot shoreline band. • San Francisco International Airport (SFLA,) SFLA is a major influence on land use in the East of 101 Area. SHA is approximately 13 miles south of the Genentech Campus. • Caltrain Station and BART Station. There are shuttle bus links to the South San Francisco BART Station and to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The BART station is approximately- -k miles aNvay. The Caltrain station is approximately- 2 miles away-. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits,financing approval, or participation agreement): In addition to the City- of South San Francisco (Lead _-agency), other agencies whose approval may be required for individual development projects pursuant to the 2007 Master Plan include, but are not necessarily-limited to: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RNVQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board (SN\'R(.B) • Bad-Area_fir Quality Management District (13AAQ1ID) • San Francisco Bad-Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 4 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 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 pact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Ej Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources EJ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emdssions Hazards/Hazardous Materials El Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Plan 1\, ` eral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems El Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: El I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION e prepared. El 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. El 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"less than 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. A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken or new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECL-kRATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature DatJ Susy Kalkin,Chief Planner Name Title City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 5 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update inifiall Study Sf-3084649 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects life 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 would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must tape 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 constniction as well as operational impacts. 3) Chice the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially-Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR or Supplemental EIR may be required. -l) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With litigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially-Significant Impact" to a "Less-Than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly- explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier_analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration as allowed by tiering, the use of a program EIR, or information from another CEQA, process (CEQA, Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). Where reliance on earlier analyses is used, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier_ rtalysis Used. Identify-and state where the earlier analysis is 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 anal ysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) 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. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evalhiate each question. b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 6 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 1. AESTHETICS Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. The 2007 MEIR analyzed brieNvs from the three different brie«%point locations that could potentially be impacted by proposed future expansion and growth associated with implementation of the 2007 Master Plan. These viewpoints are representative of views held of scenic vistas from various vantage points to the south, west, and north of the Stud- Area and include all major view points for public vieNvs of the project. The 2007 Master Plan specifically identifies the need to limit the higher elevations within the �ti%est Campus neighborhood to comply- with FAA regulations atid maintain a view corridor to the Wind Chimes sculpture located within the yiewshed of the West Campus. The 2007 MEIR identified project requirement PR4.9-1 to ensure that future development within the West Campus would retain views of the Wind Chimes. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply- to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately- describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 lfaster Plan, and no fiirther environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact would remain less than significant No additional analysis is required. PR4.9-1 Eutl/e derelopule/at//ithi/a the Veit Campus shall be eon.rt/rveted so as /aot to ob.rt/Tlet eti'stilig rievs of,Sali F-nmci.reo Boxy alid Po7rat,Vali Brrvlio Hill alid the assocz*a/ed "Vilid Chiules".reu�tule,fioul ar ea //est of the Ge/re/atech Crppls, includi/i, t V-101. Ope/a .Vw e area alid/ae//, read) qy.i shall be desiolied to p ride/ievs of these/erou/ees. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Discussion No Impact. The Genentech Campus is built on and around Point San Bruno Hill—the highest point in the East of 101 _area Nvlth views overlooking San Francisco Bad- and mangy-major landmarks in the Bad- _area. Sections of Bad- Area Interstate 280 (1-280), Interstate 580 (1-580), and Interstate 680 (1-680) have City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 7 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 been designated as scenic corridors under the State Scenic Highway program, but tliev do not provide motorists with expansive or continuous, uninternipted views of the Bay. None of these designated highways is in the vicinity of the Genentech Campus. The closest scenic highway is I-280, which Wins north-south more than 5 miles to the west of the Genentech Campus. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, there are no impacts to resources within a scenic highway. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site and its surroundings? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a continuation of approved development within the existing Genentecli Master Plan District and a subsequent intensification of existing land uses within the Genentech Master Plan District. New development would be required to comply with development regulations found within the Master Plan District and Business Teclinol<<gy Park District in the South San Francisco 1lunicipal Code, including the Zone Ordinance; and be consistent with policies stated within the City's East of 101 Area Plan. New development would be compatible with existing patterns of development with respect to height, massing, setback, architecture, and would not therefore be considered a significant impact on the visual character or quality of the existing Study_area. Since certification of the 2007 MEIR, minor development and demolition activities have occurred on the Genentech Campus, including: shuttle stop, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements; demolition of the approximately 154,000 sf Building 1 on the Lower Campus; demolition of the approximately 59,000 sf Building 2; demolition of the approximately 11,000 sf HT-13 building; removal of the approximately- 19,000 sf Building 55 (a temporary building) on the Upper Campus; development of Building 31, a new 151,000 sf office building on the Upper Campus; conversion of approximately 43,000 sf of Building 20 laboratory- space into office space; and demolition of an existing warehouse stnicture and redevelopment into a 531000 sf childcare facility for 500 children on Allerton avenue. The comprehensive list of desigil strategies identified in the 2007 Master Plan, in combination with quditig policies from the East of 101 Area Plan and development and design standards of the Genentech Master Plan District, and implementation of project requirement PR4.9-2, identified in the 2007 MEIR, will ensure that new development as a result of build-out of the 2007 lfaster Plan enhances the visual quality and character of the Study _area. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. Therefore, as there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could 8 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, impacts would be less than significant No additional analysis is required. PR4.9-2 Derelop//le/atr //zthz/a the poposed lIEIR,Vtu�yA/ea lisible fivNI I;S-101 be de.ifned//7th a high liflIal gllalzty. Futme derelopple/ati //zthi/a the poposed 11EIR Stu(1y Area shall be deir,ned to e/ahali e the r zWal imiee of the�v ear as see/a fi vul I;S-101 alid shall be (Je.i f lied,)/ith the l iev.i fi'oul LS-101 i/a //lz/a(,1 z/a onier to t7 eate all aerthetiurlly pleaSil, a/ld,z/ar zti/i, e/al z.mli/le/at fi ON1 I;S-101. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would ❑ ® ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is an expansion of existing commercial, office, manufacturing, and related structures currently owned I)v Genentech. No residential uses are located within the Study area and residential uses are not permitted within the entire East of 101 _area. _adjacent land uses consist of commercial, industrial, and recreational uses, and these areas would not be adversely impacted by potential daytime glare. However, the Upper Campus neighborhood occupies the highest point in the East of 101 Area on the highest point of Point San Bruno Hill, and is visible from US-101 and much of the East of 101 Area. ht order to ensure that new development contemplated under the 2007 ,Master Plan did not create new significant liglit and glare impacts, the 2007 HEIR identified mitigation measures which were found to reduce any potential light and glare impacts to less than significant levels. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 ,Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. Therefore, as there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, and with implementation of MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-2(c), this impact would be considered less than significant No additional analysis is required. 1111-1.9-1 Der7g/a for the poposed.rt/uetu/es o/a the Crppls nfghbo/hoods sl)all iwlu(Je the u.re of tetitu/ed1 or other/ao/a-/eflectire eNtoior.rm fil ces alid /ao/a-/eflectire,glas lyper, i/rcludi/, (louble,,lar"ed1 a/ld /ao/a- lefleetire/Z'Sio/i fans. All eNten'or,glass Must Meet the.Vet,zfiurtion.r of all 6��pliuxble coder. 11114.9-2(a) llail&ii/a 6��pv /iate lerelr of l7,ht at buildi/, ent/ies, valk// ),s' eouqanis' par kl*/l, lots a/ld P it ate /wait at /a7,ht eon.ri.rle/at )nW) //lz/az//lu// ler elr del filed z/a Ge/ae/atecl'.i secu/zty plali alid buildi/, coder. 11114.9-2(b) E/ahalice cappls clr vaster//zth eolisiste/at u.re of l7,ht ftitu/er,fi/az.rhes alid colors. 11114.9-2 F:vtme ci alid he7ghti l)all confo/w to the follo//z/Ig i le, ri c ri7ble: (� '. 4' . City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 9 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 • P r/Vii/g lots x/a 1/ r 1.i / r i 1e / u/a 1 ftitm er o/a 22 foot polei o/a nli.red1 eone/ete food/gs /aot to e teed a 25 foot total fi/aished hei ht, 6rpp piakh finished black, or 6��p red equal. • Sidevalks,path//Styr, alid plartiii pvlide /Illid her/Atop o/a post top fititmes /aotto e ceed1 a 15 foot tot�rl finished height, 6��pv /iakh fi/aished black, or 6��p red equal. • Aece/at pedert/iali lighting pmlide bollani style fititmei, /aot to e ceed1 a 42-inch total height, r / /i rtely f/ai.ilre 1 black, or 6��p v r ed equal. 11. AGRI CU LTU REJORESTRY RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: (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 nonagricultural use? Discussion No Impact. Agricultural resources include lands designated as farmland in the California Department of Conservation's Farmland flapping and Monitoring Program (FNBIP), parcels under a Williamson _pct contract, and any- other parcels identified by local jurisdictions as agricultural in nature or where agricultural activit< is permitted. The majority of the proposed project area is designated as Business and Teclinol<<gy Parr, with a narrow strip of land that extends south along the coastline designated as Parr and Recreation. No properties within proximity to the project site, including the project site,are currently used for agricultural purposes. Implementation of the Master Plan would not involve changes that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR,no lmpactwould occur. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ contract? Discussion No Impact. The project site does not contain existing zoning for agricultural use or land under a Williamson _pct Contract. Therefore, as there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new 10 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 iti6ormution dhutnms not knonni und could not have bccn knormi at the time of the certification of the 2007I|[]|l no In2pactNvotild occur No additiortal unuknininoc d. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as [l 1:1 1:1 H defined in Public Resources Code Section l2220(g))' timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526)' ortimberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? Discussion No Impact. The pnocct site does not contuirt existilig Zo - undnxnJd not cuunc rezortitig of,- forest iuid or tindbcdund zutcd as Tindbcrhod Production. As there are no substantial chungcn iii the circumntunccn, orncnriti6onnuton that nannotkoonniuodcou|dnot have bccnkoormiut the time of the certification of the 2007 IDR|;L no i cfrvou|d occur. No additional unuknin in required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Result in the |cos of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonfonas use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due totheir [l 1:1 1:1 H location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonfore*t use? Discussion No Impact. There in no 6cnJuod or 6zrcnt |uod located in the vicinity of the proposed project site, as the area inh�| |vurb���cduoddcvc|opcdn�rh (}cncntcchcchtcduncn� |n�n|cn�cntu�onofrhcproponcd pro|cc t rvo |d o t co �� tr to d cvc|opoc t that rvo |d covcr t farmlatid to on-ugp cu|tucJ uncn or forest |und to non-forest uncn. As there are no nubntuntiu| chuog7n in the circumstances, or nuv information dhutrvun not knmvn und could not have bccn knmvn at the time of the certification of the 2007I||l|D' nm impactNvotild occur. Noudditionu| uoukrnininrequired. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master BR for the I Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f-3084649 III. AIR QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Where ovoi|ob|e' 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: (o) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality El El El plan? Discussion Potentially Significant Dmpuct, The proposed pno'cct site in |ocutcdnidhin Sun I|utco County, nidhin the niiic-countY Sun Francisco Bay Area AirBunjn (Buniti) uod in wider the Jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality I t [intrict U)\, nlhich is purnuuntto the CuU6onilu CleunAir Act (CC\\), to scducc cninnionn of criteria pollutant 6ornlhich the Bunjn in jn nonuttainmuit. To that nni |[) u nxork-n directiv nidh the Association ofBuv Area Govertimetits , the I|ctropoUtunTrunnportution Commission C\U-[\, und local govcnimuita undcooperates actively nidh all federal uod State government agencies. Strategies to achieve dhcnc reductions jn cuinnionn are developed in the C|cuo Air Plan prepared byB\A()\U] for the Basin. The 2007 IUR|D |bund the 2007 I|untcr P|un rvou|d be consistent rvirh the C|cuo Air P|uo that nmn adopted by the BAA()\U) in2UUU. Connintrncynirh the 2UUUC|cuo Air P|uorvundctcnnincdbynhonitig that uprocct rvun connintcntrvirh local genccu| p|uo`n |undunc dcn ution, rhcnitin connintcntrvirh the C|cun Air P|uo. Most occcndv, the 2010 (]cuo Air P|uo nms adopted by the Board of Directors on September 15, 2010. The 2010 CAP in based on regional population procctionn inc|udcd in Gcnccu| P|uon for those comnu/niticn located nidhin the Basin, inc|uditig the City of South Sun Francisco. The project's dcvc|opmcntintcnnitYinconnintrntnidh the (}cncntcch Master P|uo District ntundurdn. The Study Area's cunrnt zonitig designation rvou|d accommodate the proposed procct`n components. The proposed rocctnxou|dimp|cuocntuodconfbrmtovuriountrunnportutioncontno| uod trip scductionmcunurcnthat are connintcntrvirh the BAA()\|[)`n goals for scducitigrc onoJuirpoUutunta. Uodcr BAA()\DD uocdhodo|ogy, for connintrncYNvirh the 2010 C|cun Air P|uo, u project or p|uo nu/nt dcuoonntrutc that the population or VI[[ unnuuoptionn contained in the C|cun Air P|uorvou|d not be czcccdcd uod that the procctorp|un imp|cuocntn transportation control uocunurcn ([CI|n) as applicable. For the 2010 Cleart Air Plart, the travel activitv adjt1stmelits tised iii preparitig the ort-road mobile sotirce invcntorYusc the nuuoc as those uncd in the Transportation Air Quality ConfbrnitYAnoJynin fbrI[[Cn regional trunnportutionp|unn. I[[Cn tcuxc| dcuouod model uti|izcn regional demographic forecasts from ABA(}`n nociocconouoicuodpopu|utionprocctionn. ||on/cvcr, un dhcBAA()IU) has prepared the 2010 C|cuo Air Plan, the circuuontunccn undcrrvhich dcvc|opuocnt of the 2007 I|untcr P|uo rvou|d occur have chuog7d und nuv informutionNvidh regards to the B\\()\|[)`n methodology iii knmv. Therefore, build- out of the 2007 I|untcr P|un may conflict nidh the 2010 C|cun Air P|un in light ofBAA()IU)`n revised rhscnho|dn of n iGcuncc, und this rvou|d be considered u Jnmb:o/iaJ9r significant impuct, uod niU be further cvukmtrdiii the S[.|;L 12 City ofSouth San Francisco Update to the Master BR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ® ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. The B AAQ:NID is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts Basin. The B AAQ:NID has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of C APs, the most recent of which was adopted in September 2010. The 2010 CAP is designed to satisfy the CCAA tri-annual update requirements and to fulfill the B AAQ:NID's commitment to update transportation emission budgets based on the latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions. The 2007 HEIR evaluated emissions based on the 1999 B_ AQ1ID CEQA Guidelines. Subsequently the B AAQ:NID CEQ A Guidelines have been revised, with the most recent update in May 2011. With the revisions of B_ AQ1ID's advisory qudelities, the methodology and thresholds that were used in the 2007 HEIR have changed. Most notably are the introduction of quantitative thresholds for construction activities and operational P1123 emissions, and the lowering of thresholds for NOX and ROG emissions. Construction and operation activities associated with implementation of the proposed project have the potential to generate additional emissions for these nonattainment criteria pollutants and potentially- result in a substantial increase in regional air emissions. Stationary- and area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating de-ices, the operation of diesel- powered emergency generators, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Although the 2007 MEIR fully analyzed the impacts from construction-related and operational emissions and found them to be significant and unavoidable, and the scope of emissions analyzed in the 2007 HEIR has not changed because no amendments to the Master Plan are being; proposed, a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) will nonetheless be prepared to reevaluate potential impacts that could occur from build-out of the remaining development capacity associated with the 2007 Master Plan in light of B_ AQ1ID's revised thresholds of significance. Therefore, air quality impacts are potentially signi&cantand will be evaluated in the SEIR. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ® ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to discussion IILb, above. Construction and operation of the proposed project could potentially result in the emission of criteria pollutants. Although those emissions were full- analyzed in the 2007 HEIR and found to be significance and avoidable, potential cumulative City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 13 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 impacts to air quality from construction and operation of the proposed project will be reevaluated in the SEIR in light of B_ AQ1fD's revised thresholds of significance. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. The Study Area is located adjacent to Interstate 101 Freeway (I-101) and currently contains office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking structures. The proposed project will allow for those land uses to continue and expand as identified in the 2007 Master Plan. Due to the adjacency of the proposed project to major transportation thoroughfares within the City, the potential for veliicle emissions impacts and CO hot spots is increased. In addition, during construction, existing sensitive receptors in adjacent development could experience III levels of emissions of criteria pollutants from construction equipment. B AAQ:NID defines sensitive receptors as facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or otliers who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. _although accounted for in the 2007 MEIR, the child care center located on Allerton avenue is now operational and could be considered a new sensitive receptor. _additionally, B_ AQ1ID has adopted revised thresholds of significance for toxic air contaminants which became effective in Mav 2011. Thus althotigli the 2007 HEIR tulle- analyzed air quality impacts on sensitive receptors this impact could be potentially signsficantand will be evaluated in the SEIR. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ people? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. As analyzed in the 2007 MEIR, there is one hotel located within the Study _area; however, hotels are not among the land uses that the B_ AQ1ID has identified as prime sources of odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, certain manufacturing plants). The most likely potential operational airborne odors associated with operation of the project office uses could emanate from refuse storage area(s). These odors would likely- be confined to the immediate vicinity of the storage area(s), and since the refiise receptacles would have lids and be emptied on a regular basis, substantial odors would not likely have a chance to develop. Tlierefore, there would be no significant odor impacts to on-site or off-site sensitive receptors. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no furtlier environmental 14 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact would be less than significant No additional analysis is required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Most of the demolition, new construction, interior remodeling, and infrastructure improvements proposed under build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would occur on previously disturbed land. The California Natural Diversity Database (('.NDDB) indicates the occurrence of potentially sensitive biological resources in the vicinity of the Genentech Campus; however, a review of the 2011 CNDD report prepared for this Initial Study, and included as _appendix A (California Natural Diversity Database Otaput), and the 2007 CNDDB report prepared for the 2007 HEIR, shows no change to biological resources in the project vicinity. As identified in the 2007 HEIR, marginal foraging and nesting habitat for the salt marsli common yellowthroat and marginal nesting habitat for the Alameda song sparrow is provided by the stands of salt grasses scattered throt>ghout the coastal salt marsh area adjacent to the Stud- _area. Tlierefore, these species do have the potential to occur here. Pile-driving required for construction activities associated with the proposed project on land adjacent to the coastal salt marsli would generate noise levels that could disrupt nesting attempts. Disruption of nesting could lead to locally reduced populations of these sensitive species and was therefore considered a potentially- significant impact in the 2007 HEIR. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.1-1, identified in the 2007 MEIR,would reduce impacts to salt marsli common yellowthroat and Alameda song sparrow. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no furtlier environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact would be less than significant No additional analysis is required. 11114.1 1 O/a lalid ar*aee/at to the coastal salt ularrl),Azle-d/zrir, r.iio zrted //zth eon.rt/Taio/r actilitier s/)a/l aroid the Feb/uag 1 tlmollgh A7r;ust 31 bini neitilio poiod (Hu/ater 1999) to the eNte/atpo.r.i7ble. If/ao pile-d/zli/i, is poposed dl/z/, the ne.itilio period, /ao sun ps are required. If it zr /aot f asible to rroid the neiti/i,po zod, r .iu/zey for/resti/, bb'ds sl)all be co/adueted by, a gllaified//zldlif biolq i.it City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 15 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 no wilier MaR 14 dq)s pior to pile-diili/y. The ar ea suneyed shall include all wear vithi/a 150 f et outride the bolllid r/ier of the�vea//he/e pile-(,biri/y is to oeeur or as othenfiSe (fete/)Vlinedl by Me biologist. V/ r ey/e.rultr shall be l alid for 21 dq),s folio//i/y the sun p,ey hrte. In the ere/at Mat all retire next i.r di.reore/ed i/a the ar eas to be habit�rtr//ithi/a 150 f et of eon.rt/rletio/a bouladan'er,pile-diirily shall be posponedl for at least my )leeks or until a ) ildif biologist has deteimined Mat the yollq hire fledged (left the nest, the nest is lacatedl, glad,there is lio elidenee of second nestily altemptr. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. The coastal salt marsh located along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay- Trail public access parking area is considered a threatened habitat by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Tliis marsh area has the potential to support sensitive plant and animal species. Deposition of sediment resulting; from adjacent constniction activity would impact this sensitive habitat. A discussion of soil erosion impacts is presented in Section 14.3 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the 2007 MEIR. Also provided are project requirements to decrease soil erosion to less-than-significant levels. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no furtlier environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. In addition, incorporation of project requirements PR 4.13-1(a) and PR 4.13-1(1)) would ensure impacts relating to soil erosion to the coastal salt marsli, riparian habitat or otlier sensitive natural community- would remain less than significant No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? Discussion No Impact. There are no wetlands within the Stud- _area. Coastal salt marsli habitat occurs adjacent to the Study Area, but would not be directly impacted. The proposed project does not include development in the Bay- or on the salt marsli. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant 16 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan Neill be implemented have occurred. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, there would be no impact to wetlands. No additional analysis is regtllred. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Construction and development associated with implementation of the proposed project would not occur within any critical or sensitive habitat. All the listings of critical habitat provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFN\'S) were reviewed as part of the 2011 CNDDB report, and the Stud-Area does not contain anv new lands designated as critical habitat for anv threatened or endangered species. Most species of birds occurring on the Stud- Area are protected by both state (Fish and Game Code) and federal (117g/atog Bhd, Tear y Act of 1918) laws. The landscaping vegetation within the Stud- area provides nesting habitat. It is expected that relatively minor amounts of landscaping would be removed at any one time. Because of this, access to and use of native wildlife nursery sites will not be substantially interrupted by the proposed project. If vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period, it could result in potential violation of Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3513, or 3800) if it results in destruction of bird nests; however, the project sponsor would comply with the applicable regulations. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this is considered a less-than-significant impact of the proposed project. No additional analysis is required. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 17 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological El V\1 ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Landscaped areas in the Study Area may- contain trees defined as "protected" by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Development activities could involve "removal" or "pruning" of protected trees. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.1-2, indentified in the 2007 MEIR,would reduce this impact to a less-than-slgni&cantlevel. No additional analysis is required. 1111-1.1-2 Aior to the slMt of eon.rt/uctio/i, the p/feet 6�pliur/at shall /et�ri/a a eeatifiedl ar bon*st to eo/aduet p/eeon.rt/uetio/a sunp,s of tees //zthz/a the HEIR ,Vtl�y A/va, alid p/olide a N166p to the 6rppliur/at alid the City. Ea lr p/oteeted t/ee identified tkrt//zll be di/eatly i//acted by /e//lolal orp/uni/, s/)a/l legllbe a Tlee Plrvlazl gl Re//lolal Powit per Title 13, "66�ter 13.30 of the ,South ,Serra Fialici.reo tilunit,zpal Coyle (VVEA1C). Thz.i pe/)/lzt s1)a1l be submitted to the City alid ulust be 6�pP red,befo/e buildir,peiwiti Brae i.rrued1 Replace//le/at trees sl)all be deteimined as set fo/th z/a,V VF11C,Section 13.30.080: (r) Any p/oteeted trees tl)at Brae aeulor eel sl)all be/epl�ree_ ri folio//.i: (1� Replace//le/at shall be th/ee 244wlr boN Si-e or my 36411clr boN uliraiuluul .iitie laln/suoe trees for ea lr to ee aeulor ed as detmvlined below Ho)r ,er er, the dil eetor N1X*1&ri1i.r the /rght to li trte.iitie alid.peeie.i of t/eei i/a ner/ ler clop/le/ati. (2) Any p/oteeted twee aeulored vithout a ralid peimit sl)all be /eplaced by t//o thz/ty-.rzN-iwlr boti /lz/ai/lu/l.iitie lx/a lic e t/ee.i for ea lr twee so aeulor ed as detoWinedl belo//. (3) Replace//le/at of a p/oteeted twee urn be //�rzred by the (li/eetor zf a sgffit,ze/at/number of trees e z.st o/a the pmpe/ty to Peet all other aequiaenlerati of the t/ee p/erenatio/a on,#&rnee. (4) If aepla enlerat t/eer, as desioli rted i/a or (2) of this sectio/i, as 6rppliurble, cannot be plalited o/a the pmpo.4, pg),Nlerat of Mice the aepla enlerat fable of the tree as deteimined by the Inte/rurtiolial ,Voczety of Aaboazcult/we ,Vltmdar ds sl)all be Pare to the City. ,V10)pg),Nlerati shall be deposited z/a the tree plalmi/i,f slid to be diwrva upon forpublie t/ee pu/'cl)ase alid planti/,. (Oni. 1271 g l ar t), 2000: On,/. 1060 g l r/t), 1989 18 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion No Impact. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not therefore conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified I the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 I ied *rt I I Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not ktioNvii and could not have been ktioNvii at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, no jmpactNvotild occur. No additional analysis is required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a V\i 171 ❑historical resource as defined in 15064.5? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. According the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) Northwest Information Center (NNVIC.), which reviewed pertinent data maps, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo Comity on file at the NNVIC. office, included as _appendix B (Historic Resources Records Search Results), there are no new previously identified historic structures located within the Study Area. State and federal inventories list no historic properties within the Study Area. The nearest stnicture listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NR1-1P) Index is outside the Study Area on East Grand venue. The Study Area currently comprises non-historic structures used to support the fil-itictiorts of Genentech. The project would not require demolition of a stnicture or stnictures Nvliicll are potentially- eligible for listing on the NRHP or California Register of Historical Resources (CRI-IR). There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified III the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no ffirther environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not ktioNvii and could City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 19 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 not have been lriown at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact is considered less than significant No additional analysis is regtllred. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an El ® ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to excavate and grade in areas that were previously developed. As such, previously unidentified archaeological resources eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR may be located within the Study Area or its immediate vicinity during project construction. Construction of the project could result in ground disturbance associated with grading, excavating, and trenching, which could damage or destroy previously unidentified, significant archaeological resources. Tliis impact is considered potentially significant. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not lriown and could not have been lriown at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. The potentially significant impact on previously unidentified archaeological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM4.10-1(a) and 1111-1.10-1(b). No additional analysis is required. 1111 .10-1(a) Ifali u/aidentified ar laeologiurl �eioun'ce i.i uncoroed dun* q con.itlrvctio/1, a gllaified ar l)aeol� i.it rl red by thel feetliuxlat.ihall eoladuet eld stdy to detif fv afi theleielaee of r/ l/aeol iurl/e.iou/eei i1i the a/ea .mmIllldil, the dis ore/y. Field study //lay include, but is /aot li//lited to,pede hall sulrey' au,u/il101; and//lolaitolill, eon.rtluetioll aetiritier as hell as other eo//moli //letl./odi used to identif the /e.ie/aee of r/ l/aeol iurl/eiou/ee.i i/a r fully dereloed u/I�r/a r/er. 1111-1.10- If ali ulaidentified al l/aeolo iurl leroulee i.r uneoreled dun*/1g e011.rtlueti0l1, a qualified al l/aeol� i.it 6rpp red by the p feet appliux/at shall first detomi/ae //,ether this /esou/ee z.s a `111iique a/'cl/aeolo iurl /eiom'ty" under 36 CFR 800, C:E()A ,Veetioli 1506-1.5, alid/or Public Resou/ees Code ,Veetioli 21083.2. If the a/cl/aeolo iurl /erou/ee i.r detoWined to be a `TV/aique a/Ckleolq iurl /e.iou/ee," the a/cl/aeolq ist .ihall fo/mIllate a //litigatio/a plali that sati.ifes the /equi/e//le/ati of 36 CFR 800, CEOA Section 150645, and/or Public Resources Code 21083.2. folk in the icinity of the f/ad /lay/eiu/le at the co/l letio/a of a /litz,atio/a pla/a or/ecoreq of the/erou/ee. If the a/cl/aeolq ist detomine.i that the a/Cl/aeological/esou/ee is /aot a u/aique'r/1'l/aeolq ical/esomce, vmk //zll/esu//le, a/ad the a/cl/aeologist//lay /econi the site alid submit the /econlatio/a foul to the Calif rliz'�r Historic Reromces Infolulatio/a V),stepl Aolth//e It Ifol)/latio/a Centel: 20 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 The �v l)aeolo zrt shall pvpa/e a /epo/t of the /erultr of ali , study pvpa/vd as par t of a //lit7gatio/a p/a/a, follo//zn, retie to l / f.iiion rl�/ reface. Copies of the /epo/t shall be submitted,to the City a/ld to the Crlifo/raz�r Histo/ze Rerou/ees Info/)vlatio/a,SYste//l A o/th/r e.rt Info/)vlatio/a Celmo: Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site or unique geologic feature? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. The 2007 MEIR did not identify unique paleontological or unique geologic features are located in the Stud- _area. _according to the LAC11, no vertebrate fossil localities exist on the San Francisco peninsula, thus, no unique paleontological resource or unique geologic features are anticipated to exist in the Stud- _area. The University of California, Berkeley- Museum of Paleontole<gY database was also searclied to determine wlietlier invertebrate or vertebrate fossils were present. No vertebrate fossils were listed (UCB 2006). There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR,and this impact is considered less than significant No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of El ® ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Study Area is not known to be located within a human burial ground and no known human burial sites have been identified within the Study Area or its immediate vicinity. However, previously unidentified human remains could be encountered during ground disturbing activities with construction of the project Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the PRC. Disturbing human remains could violate the health code, as well as destroy- the resource. To minimize this impact, the 2007 MEIR identified that implementation of MM4.10-2, shall be required if human remains are discovered in the Study Area: There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigatioms associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 21 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. This potentially significantly impact on previously unidentified human remains would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM4.104. No additional anal ysis is required. 1111-1.10-2 In the ere/at of the di.reorery of a bu/ial, hunlali bone, or.ru.�peeted hunlali bone, all e calatio/a or gnidi/I, v ithi/a 100 f et of the f/ad.ih tll halt inlnledi rtely, the r/e r of the f/ad.ih tll bed/ tested, x/ad the y/jeet �p liuxnt inlnledi rtely .ih tll/notify,the,Vali lateo County Comfier of the fi/ad a/n/Comply /fith the p lision.r of PRC ,Veetioli 5097 /fith /e.peet to Natire Anle/zuxn i//rolrenle/at, bu/ial t/eatnle/at, alid /e-burial, if neee.sap,. Vo/k P1q), /esunle once the ar ea i.i p teeted or the body i.r l eynor ed. GEOLOGY/SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 groundshaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (i) Landslides? El ® ❑ ❑ Discussion Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1994, and no known active or potentially- active faults traverse the Genentecli Master Plan District. Because ground rupture generally- only- occurs at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known to traverse the Stud-_area, the Stud-Area would not be subject to a substantial risk of surface fault ruptures. However, if evidence of an active or potentially- active fault is discovered during preparation of a site-specific geoteclinical report, as required I)v the East of 101 Plan, Polio-GEO-13, and incorporated in the 2007 HEIR as PR43-1, the report shall address the potential hazard and provide design recommendations that shall be incorporated into the project. Further, Genentech will retain a certified Licensed Geotechnical Engineer to prepare site-specific geotechnical studies, which will ensure that new development on the Stud-Area provides an acceptable level of protection against seismic-related hazards according to current geoteclinical engineering and the California Building Code (CBC), 2010 Edition, as adopted by the City-lfunicipal Code. 22 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Several portions of the Stud-Area have relatively steep slopes, and general constriction activities such as exc<avation and grading can create new slopes. Improper loading of fill materials, or excessive irrigation practices may also induce slope instability- or landsliding. The East of 101 Plan Geotechnical Safety- Element Policies GEO-7 through GEO-9, and incorporated in the 2007 MEIR as PR43-1(a) through PR43-1(d), are designed specifically to mitigate any impacts associated with landsliding and unstable slope conditions. _adherence to the City-'s codes and policies, including those incorporated as PR43-1(b) through PR43-1(d),would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of the project and minimize the risks associated with landsliding. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not krtown and could not have been krtown at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Continued compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) as well as the applicable provisions of the Seismic Hazards flapping _pct and following the identified Project Requirements, would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. No additional analysis is required. PR4.5-1(a) Derelopnlelit rrzthira the pelinlZ'11ag boundag of the Coyote Point hartivd ar va, as depicted oli Fz,ure 15of the East of 101 Arva Mali glad ref i7ed to as Fz,ure 4.5-6 ira this lIEIR, shall be relierred by a eotechlricrl eligineo: Fault treliCIVII, Try be required ora iradirid11a1 derelopnlelit sites »here f asible alid deter)Veined neeessag by the eq,ineer: Ao .071ctme for hunlala oeeupa/la y sh�rll occur rrithira 50 f et of identif ed retire fsrults, unless�r, eoteclrlaicrl ilrl estf�rtioli glad report de owz*ne that no retire brake res of that fsrult underlie the sur free. PR4.5-1(b) Derr, slopes, water Mali 5-feet ira hez,ht, either cut irr lurtire soils or r ck, or t,reated bypl�rcir1',fill nlatoz*al, shall be desz,ned by a, eotehlaicrl ei,ineer glad.should hare ali 6�P m ri rte fretor of s rf ty Mader seismic loadil,. If additiolial lord is to be placed, at the top of the slope, or if eNtelidilig a lerel ar va at the toe of the slope requires renlolal of par t of the slope, the poposed eonfguaatiora shall be checked for ala adequate fsretor of serf ty by a, eotehlaicrl eigineer; based ola 6rpplicrble codes glad �a�f ssion�rl st�rrad�ra�1s. PR4.5- The suafree of fill slopes shall be compacted duair, eonstarictiola to aeduee the likelihood of suafeial slou,hil,. The suafree of cut or fll slopes shall also be p teeted f nl ea siora due topeei�itrtiora or rry aoff by irata du t,7 rk, r re g&rtire corer ola the slope or by other nlealis. Ilvlaoff fmpl pared, or other par is of the slope shall be directed aaa,ry fiom the slope. PR4.5-1(d) VteeP hillside�vvas ila e cess of 30peaeeat, wade shall be aet�riraed in their Natural st�rte. Der elopnlelat of hillside sites should-folio)), etirstila, contour's to the, aeatest etitelatpos.l7ble xrad ,azrdir, should be kept to a nlirainlunl. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 23 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary- and erosion effects would depend largely on the areas excavated, the quantity of excavation, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. In addition, all constriction activities would comply with Chapter 18 of the CBC, which regulates excavation activities and the constriction of foundations and retaining walls, and Chapter 33 of the CBC, which regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. _additionally, Gerterttecli would continue to comply with the NPDES general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which as part of an erosion control plan, constniction site erosion and sedimentation control best management practices (131IPs) would be implemented and would include such measures as silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. Further, Genentech would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP), and will require runoff management programs that would include B:NIPs to control erosion and sedimentation. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 HEIR. Tlierefore, substantial erosion is unlikely to occur on an operational basis, and this impact would be considered to be less than significant No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would El ® ❑ ❑ become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Lower Campus of the proposed project is composed of fill soils which were placed over wetlands and Bay 1lud during the last century. A site-specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by the East of 101 Plan Geoteclinical Safety Element Policies GEO-1 through 2, and incorporated as PR4.5-2(a) and PR4.5-2(b) in the 2007 HEIR, and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site, that become an integral part of the construction desigil. 24 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 PR4.5-2(q) The City shall assess the need for,geotech/aiurl i/arestigation.r 0/1 r p�ject b�YZ'S on sites i/a rl e r.i of fill as depicted oli the East of 101 Al ear Mali, Figure 17alid, l of l ed1 to as F gun e 4.5-7 ila this AlEIR, alid shall require Such i/rr e.itfation.r//hoe needed- PR4.S-2(b) lf"he/e fill /epwz*n.r u/ader a pmposed .rt/letme, p/feet dereloperi shall (ter g/a a/ad1 eon.rt/rlet �rp�l��li�rte foula�l�rtion.r. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Adherence to the City's codes and policies and following the identified Project Requirements would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of the project and would result in a less-than-slgni&cant impact. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 20-1-B of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils are less than significant by identif-Ving site-specific soils characteristics and constraints and designing strictures and foundations to address such constraints. Such recommendations could include design features, such as expansion joints in strictures, mounting foundations on concrete piles, or replacing existing soils on a project site with stable fill material, and would either result in a stricture that could withstand soils expansion or a building pad substrate that would not be subject to expansIve ties s. Identification of expansive soils before constriction and implementation of appropriate design measures would ensure that foundations and strictures would provide an adequate level of protection according to current seismic and geoteclinical engineering practice to provide adequate safety levels, as defined in the CBC, Uniform Building Code, and the East of 101 Plan Geotechnical Safety- Element. Design measures would also be subjected to structural peer review. Therefore, no substantial risk to people or structures with respect to expansive soils would result. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact is considered less than slgni&cant. No additional analysis is required. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 25 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑ tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion No Impact. The proposed project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, there would be no impact. No additional analysis is required. GREENHOUSE • Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that ® ❑ ❑ ❑ may have a significant impact on the environment? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. Future development within the Study Area could result in short-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during constriction and long-term direct and indirect emissions from occupation of the site. The construction and operation within the Study Area could result in sigmt—icant impacts from the emission of GHGs under Bad- Area _fir Quality- Management District (B_ AQ1fD) standards. Constniction related GHG emissions include exhaust from constriction vehicles. Operational activities will result in direct GHG emissions from traffic increases (mobile sources) and building heating (area sources), as well as indirect emissions from electricity- consumption, water use, and solid waste generation. In 2011, the B_ AQNID has adopted thresholds of significance for operational emissions of GHGs for land use development projects. These thresholds include compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy (a locally- adopted strategy that is consistent with AB 32 goal); or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent; or 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population per year (residents + employees). If annual emissions exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. B_ AQ1fD has not adopted a threshold of significance for constriction-related emissions, but states in their CEQA Guidelines that the Lead _agency should quantify and disclose GHG emissions from land development projects that would occur during constriction and make a determination, using URBEMIS or another appropriate model (e.g. CalEEMod), on the sigrtificance of these constniction generated GHG impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. B_ AQ1fD also encourages Lead _agencies to incorporate best management practices (131IP) to reduce GHG emissions during 26 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 IN I;mmo construction as applicable. Examples of B1fPs include using alternative fueled construction vehicles, for at least 15 percent of the fleet; using at least 10 percent local building materials; and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. At the time the 2007 HEIR was certified, a quantitative evaluation of greenhouse gas impacts was not required under CEQ A. In 2010, CEQ A amendments were adopted that require an analysis of a project's potential contribution to global climate change impacts. New information has therefore arisen since certification of the 2007 MEIR. Because the impacts from GHG emissions from construction and operation are potw6211ysignl6c2nt, they will be evaluated in the SEIR. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for ® ❑ ❑ ❑ the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. On august 31, 2006, the California Assembly passed Bill 32 (AB 32) (signed into law on September 27, 2006), requiring California to develop regulations that will reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and establishes a multi-rear regulatory process under the jurisdiction of the California _fir Resources Board (California _FRB) to establish these regulations. Chi December 11, 2008, California _FRB adopted its Climate "al ge V opz'q Mali (Scoping Plan), which ffiTnctions as a roadmap of California _FRB's plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. In august 2011, ARB reapproved the Scoping Plan with certain revisions related to an expanded alternative analysis. The Scoping Plan provides that successful implementation of the plan relies on local governments' land use planning and urban growth decisions because local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit land development to accommodate population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. The proposed project includes construction and operational activities that will result in the emission of GHGs that may impede performance standards set forth in City- policies that promote sustainability and emission reduction, as well as state policies and strategies designed to meet the emission reduction objectives in AB 32. For example, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection pct of 2008, is designed to enhance California's ability- to reach its AB 32 goals by promoting good planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. Given that B_ AQ1fD's CEQA Guidelines establish project thresholds for GHG emissions, this impact is considered potentially signllcant. Because new information has arisen since certification of the 2007 MEIR, the project's conformance with City policies as well as AB 32 will be evaltiated in the SEIR. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 27 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Vill. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in the development of additional laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as a limited increase in the average population that could be exposed to hazardous materials risks. As analyzed in the 2007 HEIR however, compliance with Genentech programs, practices, and procedures and safety standards related to the use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials and wastes, and with the safety- procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations (including the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery _pct (RCRA) and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law), and principles prescribed by the US Department of Homeland Security would reduce the risks to employees, visitors or the nearby public resulting from the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials to less than significant levels. As identified in the 2007 HEIR, federal and state law, as well as all Genentech procedures for handling hazardous wastes,would be extended to all new facilities developed under the proposed project. Buildings demolislied during construction activities could also contain biohazardous materials, inchding medical wastes. As identified in the 2007 HEIR, Genentecli's programs, practices, and procedures and current state testing, monitoring, and disposal regulations pertaining to the management of biohazardous materials, including medical waste, eliminate or reduce the potential for biohazardous substances to be present in fixtures or building materials removed during demolition. In addition, the radioactive materials license requires testing and implementation of decontamination and waste handling activities in accordance with applicable regulations when facilities using radioactive materials are decommissioned for purposes of renovation or demolition. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 HEIR, compliance with federal and state laws and regulations, as well as following existing (or equivalent) Genentech programs, practices, and procedures,would ensure that this impact remains less than signllcant. No additional analysis is required. 28 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 moommommommoom Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Create osign�cont hazard to the public or the en�ronment [l �� 1:1 1:1 through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release ofhazardous materials into the environment? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Operation Transportation Risk An identified in the 2007 IDR|;L (}cncntrch programs, practices, uod procedures npcciGcu||v govern receipt ofhuzurdoun materials ut (}cncntrch, the iJS [)cpurtmcntofTcunnportution`n /iJS[){)1\ {)fGcc of ||uzurdoun I|utcriu|n Safety prescribes strict scgp|utionn for rhc nufe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Dcgp|utionn, und imp|cuocntrd by Title 13 of the Cu|ifbrniu Code ofDcgp|u�onn� Trunnpo�u�on ofhu�urdoun n�utrrioJn along arty CitY or state roudnmvnNvidhin orncurGcncntcch in also nubcctto all hazardous uoutcrioJn transportation rcgp|utionn cntub|inhcd by the CoJifbrniu Highway Patrol pumuuotto the CoJifbrniu \rchic|c Code uod the South Suo Francisco Fire Dcpurtinmt (SSpFQ. The transportation ofhuzurdoun materials cart scnuh in accidental spills, |cu[n, toxic rc|cuncn, Gsc, or explosion. Liccnncdvcndorn britig hazardous materials to uod from the (}cncntcch facility, uodmunifenta are completed uoduouintaincd by Gcncntcch for all huzurdounrvuntc that is trunnportcdin connection rvirh (}cncntrch activities. The [)TSC also uouintainn copies of (}cncntrch`n nmntr uouoifentn. |n confbrmunccrvidh legal scqoircuocnta, incooitigcudiouc6xc material in monitored und recorded for cuch ucqom/tion� ( c utc h'n Shi qpo ig 8 Dc cu vo ig [ g7 urtnnc t processes u d delivers all /nconung radioactive materials touncm. ||uzurdoun waste nhipuocnta could occur as 6cqocndv as ncvcnJ tbncn per rvcci burritig ununuoJ circuuontunccn nuch as laboratory demolition. Scction3|3U3 of the CoJifbrniu Code of |lcgp|utionn scqoircn rhutnlicn hazardous uoutcrioJn are transported on state or interstate hi�`^myn, the hiv|nxuY(s) that offer the nhortrntovccJ| trunnit time possible nhuU bcuncd, undun scqoircdby federal und state |cnvn, all other all hazardous materials transportation regulations must be followed, nuch as iJS[){)Trcgp|utionn for puckuonguodhund|inghuzurdoun materials toprcvcntuccidcntu| spills ofhuzurdoun materials during transit. |nuddition to trunnportofhuzurdoun omtcrioJn to uod from the Gcncntcch facility, the nxovcuocntof hazardous uoutcrioJn also occurs uuootig (}cncntrch facilities (within buildings, from room to room, Nvidiin hoJkvuvn, uodop uod donni ntuinveUn uod elevators). Accidents could occurun dhcnc materials are moved uboutthe faci|ity, und czponurc of employees in possible in the cvcntofuspill, Gsc orczp|onion. (}cncntrch'n various bunincnn units czcrcinc appropriate practices to prevent upainnt the risks of accidental spills or rc|cuncn of hazardous uoutcrioJn duritig intcrnoJ transfers uod uoovcuocnt of dhcnc materials. If u spill occurs, the (}cncntcch First Alert Team (FAT) rvou|d be iuouocdiutc|v notified. If required, the area ofpotcntioJ uffectwou|d be isolated uod evacuated as appropriate in accordance Nvich City ofSouth San Francisco Update to the Master E|R for the 29 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f'3084649 the Integrated Contingency Plan to reduce the potential for human exposure and to allow for prompt and effective cleanup by the Genentech FAT, an emergency response contractor, or the appropriate regulatory agency. On-site/Facility Risk Most hazardous materials stored on-site present little risk of upset Hazardous materials in laboratories are stored in designated secured areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment and other safety- risks. Hazardous materials used for research are generally stored in laboratories in small, individual containers. In the unlikely event of an accidental release, these small storage vohimes limit potential consequences to the individual laboratory in which they are stored. Compliance with all applicable federal and state laws as well as existing Genentech programs, practices, and procedures related to the storage of hazardous materials will continue to be implemented and enforced internally- to maximize containment and to provide for prompt and effective response if an accidental release occurs. Major hazardous materials accidents are extremely- infrequent, and additional emergency response capabilities are not anticipated to be necessary to respond to the potential incremental increase in the number of incidents that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Continued compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regilations pertaining to the transport, use, storage, disposal, and handling of hazardous waste, as well as following Genentech programs, practices, and procedures, would ensure that this impact remains less than ssgni&cant No additional analysis is required. Construction As described in the 2007 HEIR, based on the historical industrial use of the area, it is possible that soil and/or groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, solvents, or other industrial materials could be encountered during construction activities. I rtown historical contamination includes leafs from underground storage tanks, which have been managed effectively in accordance with regulatory requirements. Low concentrations of ammonia were discovered in soil and groundwater under a building on lower campus, for which the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a "No Further Action" letter in 2003. Naturally occurring asbestos in serpentine rock is known to be present in the middle campus area, and may-be present in other locations as well. It is possible that contamination could exist in localized areas as the result of pesticide or herbicide use during routine landscape/turf maintenance practices or in association with the removal or disturbance of older underground utilities or unidentified buried debris. The use of pesticides is governed by the State Department of Pesticide Regulation. If required during construction activities that would occur due to full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, dewatering could result in the withdrawal of contaminated groundwater. However, contractors would implement best management practices during any construction dewatering to avoid exposure of Genentech employees or construction workers to potentially contaminated groundwater, such as groundwater testing, containment of contaminated groundwater in storage tanks for subsequent treatment and/or disposal, and/or the provision of release response information. In addition, subject to the California Water Code, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issues Waste Discharge 30 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Requirements to control discharges (inchTding groundwater) to land or water, and 1111-1.6-1, identified in the 2007 MEIR, would require that Genentech follow specific procedures in the unlikely event that contaminated groundwater is discovered during construction activities to ensure that the risk of exposure to Genentech employees or construction workers remains less than sigmt—icant. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented throughout the 2007 Master Plan planning horizon: 11114.6-7 lf"hile /aot e\Peeted to occur o/a-.rite, if eol&mz'llated .foil x/a l/or / u/a l// rter i.r e/aeounte/edl (,1/wz/1g the /e//lolal of o/a-.rite deb/Z'S or d/nZ*/l, e calatio/a alid/or gnidilig actlities, the eon.rt/uetio/a co/at/actor(s) shall stop //m k alid i//l//lediately info/w the 6��pv /mate Ge/ae/atech /ep/ese/&rtire. All o/a-.rite a sessple/a shall be eo/adueted to detowz'ne if the di.reore vd Plato Z*air pose ca.ir,/aifiux/at/ils-k to the public or eon.rt/uetio/a vmkerr. If the//latoz'als �vv dete/ulined to pose such ca /Z*s ,, ca /e//le(,#atio/a plali shall be p epa/eel alid submitted to comply )fith 6��pliuxble legal /equi/e//le/ati to a sm e the doper halidlill, alid //laligoe//le/at of contmz'luated .roil alid/or deblZ'S, alid the p tectio/a of hu//lali health alid the e/arzl,o/a//le/at for the hell,building. ,Soil le//ledi�atiola //lethod could,include, but gale laot nee s a/ily li//litedl to, e cal datio/a da/ul o/a-.rite treat//le/at, e c al datio/a da/ul off-.rite treat//le/at or dli.Vos al, da/ul/or t/edat//le/at /fithout e caldatio/a. Re//ledliatio/a dalte/aaatirer for clea/aulp of eol&a//lindatedl g/,0u/adl//dater could,include, but da/e /aot nee s a/ily li//litedl to, o/a-.rite meat//lent, eNt/zaetio/a dx/adl off-.rite treat//le/at, dx/ul/or dli.V�osal. The eon.rt/rletio/a schedule shall be //lodlifiedl or (Jelq),edl to ensue that eon.rt/u tio/a //zll /aot i/ahibit /e//ledliatio/a dactlities a/ul //ill /aot &\pose the public or eon.rt/rletio/a //m kerr to siolaifiuxlat lz.kls da sotidatedl/pith hdatida/'1ou.r eo/adlition.r. Since certification of the 2007 MEIR, there have been no substantial changes to the circumstances surrounding development of the 2007 Master Plan with respect to hazards caused by reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary-, mitigated in the 2007 HEIR, and no new information that was not known or could not have been known has become available. Following 1111-1.6-1 would ensure that this impact remains less than significant by providing specific procedures to follow in the event that contaminated soil and/or groundwater is discovered. No additional an ilysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion No Impact. Although there is an existing child center within the Study Area, located on Allerton venue which has become operational since certification of the 2007 MEIR, there are no existing schools within 0.25 mile of the Stud- _area. The Stud- Area is located in an area zoned for business and technology park uses only. Thus, no school can be proposed within 0.25 mile of the Study Area. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 31 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, there would be no impact No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials El ® ❑ ❑ 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? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, Environmental Data Resources (EDR) performed a records check in Marcli 2006 of federal, state, and count-hazardous waste lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21092.6, including, but not limited to, the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) List, the Hazardous Waste Substance List (Cortese list), the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), and registered small or large hazardous waste generators. According to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker (accessed December 13, 2011), there are no open LUST sites on the Genentech Campus that were not previously identified in the 2007 HEIR However, according to the GeoTracker database, there are tvo new non-LUST sites within the Genentech Campus that were not identified in the 2007 MEIR. One is the California Water Service Company- Reservoir #1 (T10000002807), located on Grandview _venue. This case was opened in January- 2011 and remediation is ongoing. The otlier is the O'Brien-Haskins site, a former land disposal site. This case was opened in January-2008 and no hirtlier action has been taken. If future LUST-related cleanup were determined to be necessary due to build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, all work would be performed in accordance with appropriate guidelines of the regional Underground Storage Tank Program. All non-UST hazardous waste storage locations are and would continue to be managed in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, such as RCRA and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, as well as with all existing Genentech programs, practices, and procedures. Therefore, although there new information has become available since certification of the 2007 HEIR, this new information does not give rise to and- new potentially- significant impacts or increase the severity- of and- previously identified significant impacts, and does not alter the analysis or conclusions reaclied in the 2007 HEIR. Following 1111-1.6-1 would ensure that this impact remains less than signjficant. No additional analysis is required. 32 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) For project located within on airport land use plan or,where such o plan has not been adopted,within 2 miles ofo public airport or public use airport,would the project result in o safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (f) For pro/ectwithin the vicinity ofo private airstrip,would the project result in o safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Discussion No Impact. The Study Area in |ocutcdnidiin 13 miles of the Sun Francisco |ntcniutionu Airport (SFi\). The (}cncntcch IbmtcrPho District area in nidhin the Sun Francisco Ititertiatiortal Airport pligl`t Zone uod in nubcctto the Federal Aoia6onAdninintrution /F\\\ Airport ||cig| tLimits cntubUnhcd in the Sart Mateo Comity Airport Latid Use Plart. Iii additiort to FAA statidards, the 2007 Master Plart keeps umuxinu/uobuUJitnrhc�| tUoitu�onof|5U feet ubovc {round level onbuUdingn�id�n the StudvArea, rvhich in in compliance nidh the FAA standards. No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the Study Area. An chccc are no nubntuntioJ clinnpcn or nuv information chutnmn not knonni uod could not huvc bccn knon/n at the time of the certification of the 2007 IDR|D' rhcrcrvou|d be no impact No udditionu| uou|vnininrcqoircd. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Impair implementation ofor physically interfere with onadopted El Z 1:1 1:1 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction uod opccutionuctiviticn associated rvirhdcvc|opuocnt wider bui|d-outof the 2UU7 Master P|uncou|dpotcntiuUy affect cuocrgcncy ccnponnc orcvucuutionp|unn duc to tcmporurYconntniction barricades ororhcrobntructionn rhutcou|d impede cuocrgcncyucccnn on-site. ||on/cvcr, as identified in the 2007 I||l|D' dhronl` imp|cuocntution of IL\|4.6-2k6, multiple cuocrgcncyucccnn orcvucuutionroutrnrvou|d be provided on-site to cnnurc that iii the event onc roudrvuY or tcuvc| |unc in truoporur|y blocked, uoorhcr muy be utilized. purdicrmorc, ongpingcoordinution bctxccn Gcncntcchuod local ugcncicn pumuuotto I|I14.6-2/h\, u|no idcntiGcdin the 2007 IDR|;Lrvou|d cnnusc dhutroudwuv or trcnc| |uoc c|onurcnrviU be coordinutrdnidh cuocrgcncy scnponnc pcmonnc| to cnnurc that individual dcvc|opuocntprocctn wider the 2007 Master P|uorvou|d notimpuirimp|cuocntutiono- orphynicu||vintcr|ercNvidh, cuocrg7ncyrcnponncundcvucuutionefforts. The fbUonitig oi tion uocunuscn niU be implemetited dirotigliotit the 2007 Ibmtcr Pho plartilitig horizon: J{J{4.6-2\a} To tl)e tl)e poiect /6u8axX*n/x/n at least onc mnob/tnoed bmc iw bol) (,#�cotion/ mntl)e/ite\ /oa4)rq}x A/a�qdamva6a Siavle bnc Z's mzilab/e, Gencnteo} /&111pmZ*(Je a /emYpmx! ���c sivaal /ioaa/ (lc, dq,�przon/L or ol)er 6�ppvpiate ti�if fzc mn�mi /o City ofSouth San Francisco Update to the Master BR for the 33 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f-3084649 alto//, tiarel i/a both ali/eetion.r. If eon.rt/uctio/a actilitier /equi/e the complete closure of a mad))q), iegple/at, Ge/ae/ateclr shall polide 6rpp p/i�rte Sioli oe ilidiudt/?g alterliatire mutes. 11114.6-2(15) To elisme adequate accer.i for euler,e/rcy, rehicler //he/a eon.rt/uetio/a p/ejeetr )rould/e.rult i/a temponi p, brie or mad))q), closures, the P/'ject(ropliux/at sl)all consult//zth the,South ,Vali Fanei.reo Police a/ld File Depar t//le/its to disclose temponi p,brie or mad)),q),closures alid, alterliatire tiarel mutes. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with respect to emergency response plans. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007IFIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 HEIR. Following 11114.6-2(a) and 11114.6-2(b) ensures that impacts associated with emergency response or evacuation would remain less than slgni&cant by providing multiple emergency access or evacuation routes and coordinating roadway or travel lane closures with emergency response personnel. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? Discussion No Impact. The Stud- Area is liiglily developed, and no wildlands are intermixed within this urbanized area. The Stud-Area is bordered by developed land to the north, east, and south. To the west is the San Francisco Bay. No wildlands are directly adjacent to the Study _area. The closest wildlands area, San Bruno Mountain Count- Park, is located approximately 1 mile away. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, there would be no impact. No additional analysis is required. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ® ❑ ❑ requirements? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. To comply with the Clean Water Act San Mateo Count- and the tventy cities and towns in the Count-, including the City- of South 34 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Elm San Francisco, formed the San Mateo Court"-wide STOPPP. STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RNVQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeps, San Francisco Bad-, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evalhiate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These guidelines are regulated by the SSF:NIC, General Plan, or other best management practices guidelines. The 2007 MEIR identified PR4.13-1(a) and PR4.13-1(b) to reduce constriction related impacts to water quality- (described in greater detail under IX(c) below and mitigation measures 11114.13-2(a) through 11114.13-2(d) to ensure that operational impacts to water quality-and waste discharge requirements remain less than significant. 1111-x.13-2(r) The p h feet 6��plicxrat shall derelop ali opoatiolial ,VIFTPP pior to eonsthuetiola to p teet vater quality gfter eonsthuetiola. The p'e eet ,QFPPP shall include, but riot be limited to, the follovih, mcrsuhes forth jeetopehatiola: • Dest,7 f tiola of potential souhees of emfl'ola grad sedinlerat at the phejeet site. Industlial a tir zties grad.r,raificrhat Plateiials alid alheplicrls that could be used at the pmposed p'e eet sz*te shall be dest7zbed Thzs shall include a thomlIgh assessmelat of e istiq alid potelatial pollu&rhat soul zes. • Identifcrtiola of B11Ps to be implemented at the p'e eet site based ola identified industlial actirzties Emp&Yz*s shall be placed ola souh'ce eonthol B11Ps, as ith treatmelat eolatrols uses as needed ■ Derelopmelat of a molaitwilig alid implemel&miola plaha. -Mainterurnee hequzhemelats grad fiequela�y shall be crhef7llly desehzbed includiri, rector eolatrol, cLvih, of clggged or obsthueted inlet or outlet sthuetuhes, re,etationllalidsc�e nlX*ntelurnce, hepla emelat of inedia filters, h e,ular sir eepir, of par kl'11',lots alid other paced�v ears, etc. lf'astes aenlor ed fi vnl B 11Ps P/q), be hartiir dolls; thehefohe, nlairatenanee costs shall be buwl,eted to include ci.Vosa1 at a poper site. Par kz'h, lot ar vas shall be cLned ola a da ly bcr.l7s of debhzs that miry enter the stohm chaila .ystem. • The molaztwilio exrad Plairatenalice pgoham shall be conducted at the fiequerat'y,qo,ved u1pola by the Rlf"/)CB exradl or City of,South ,Serra Fhancisco. 1lohaitohzhl, alid mcrznteruxnce shall be hech'led grad submitted almll rlly zha cooh'liliatiola with the ,VTOPPP. The,QFPPP shall be ar*Ilsted, as l essay),, to addhess ar iliadequaties of the B11Ps. • Thew ject 6�plicxrat shallpvpahe znfwwatiolial litoatme arad,guidalice ora iladliviirl exrad conlnleh zcrl B11Ps to mihaimitie Pollutalit corathzbutions firm the h'o a ec celelo melat. This znfwwatiola shall be diviibuted to all employees at the pheject site. At a milazmunl, the znfwwatiola shall coreh: (1)pmper ci.Vosa1 of commehlzcrl cicrraih, alhexlZicrls; (2)poper use of lalidsap'gg cheplicrls; (3) clean-ulp grad 6��pvpiate ci.Vosa1 of hartiv'lous Plateiials exrad c heplicrls; alid (4)p hibitiora of exray vashiri, exrad dumpzh, of Plateiials grad c heplicrls into stww chains. 1111-1.13-2(b) The p'e ect 6��plicr/at shall install a stohm dhazha intoceptor (also ,Bova as exra oillvater or oillghzt separ atoh) ola-site to hemore oils exrad heal,pah&Illates fivm sto wvato: Apphpiate s7tizr g of the unit h elatir e to the impel r zoos suh f ace chairur,e ar va is inlpohtarat grad should be t�rk era into con.l7doatiola rr hela c hoosir,the inteh't eptor unit model exrad s7tie. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 35 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 1111-1.13-2() Thee feet 6��pliurlit.shall ineolponite alteniatire diailur,e.solutions amlllid s/n ce par kz*ll, lots a/ld near kvl e/v eas of z'mpe/r ions un f ces suclr as public plarti is. ,V10) solutio/zs P/q),inClu(Je, but are/aot li//lited to, re,&Med wales, bio/ete/rtio/a ar eas,plalme//tree boNes, alldpollds. 1111-1.13-2(d) The y/feet 6��pliur/at shall ineo/ponite m ftop or do//va.Vout rete/atio/a i/ato all buildi/ig pkm s. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not Have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Development of individual buildings contemplated with full build- out of the 2007 Master Plan would be required to comply witli PR4.13-1(a) and (b) and mitigation measures :W\14.13-2(a) through (d). Furthermore, in accordance with the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would comply with the new stormwater construction permit requirements and San Mateo County's MSS permit requirements for water discharges countywide and this would ensure that impacts remain less than slgnllcant. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially El V\1 ❑ ❑ 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 that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The California Water Service Company Bayshore District (C.NVSC) serves the portion of the City- east of I-280,where the Study Area is located, as well as the cities of San Carlos and San Mateo. The project site is in the South San Francisco District (SSFD) of the C.NVSC service area. The C.NVSC prepared and adopted the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UNVNIP) in June 2011. Groundwater has Historically supplied 10 to 15 percent of the District's water demand. In 2010, SSFD provided 452 acre-feet from groundwater and project providing up to 1,535 acre-feet per year (afy) by 2040. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPU(.), Cal Water (South San Francisco and Colma), and the Cities of Dalv City and San Bruno are participating in a joint Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (CSR Project). This project would increase water supply reliability during do years or emergency conditions. Cal Water, Daly Clty, and San Bruno are The Bay- Area Water Supply and Conservation _agency (B_ WSCA) members who use groundwater from the Soutli Westside Basin to atigment their SFPUC supplies and are referred to as participating pumpers. The SFPUC would install up to sixteen new wells in the Westside Basin. There will be three operational action cycles within the proposed Groundwater Storage and Recovery Program, which are associated 36 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Elm with the available SFPUC supply. N\Iien the SFPUC determines that there is surplus supply-available they can call for a "Put" cycle during which they will deliver some of this surplus water to the program participants in lieu of groundwater pumping by the participating pumpers, thus putting or leaving the groundwater in storage in the basin. During normal supply years the SFPUC will deliver the normal quantities of imported supply to the participants who will also pump their Designated Quantity from the groundwater basin. Then when imported supplies are short the participating pumpers will pump their Designated Quantities and receive groundwater produced from the aforementioned SFPUC wells, and an equally reduced quantity of imported water. The SFPUC wells will only be operated to extract the previously stored or banked supply. The expected groundwater storage gained from this reduced pumping is approximately 61,000 acre-feet. With that amount of additional groundwater available in the basin, the agencies could pump at rate of 72 million gallons per day (mgd) for a 7.5-year dry period. The South San Francisco District has fire active wells with a total design capacity of 935 gallons per minute (gpm). If operated full-time, these wells could produce 1.38 mgd or 1,540 afv. A maximum of 1,560 afy was pumped in 1970 and 1983. The 2007 HEIR evaluated potential impacts to groundwater based upon the SSFD 2005 UNVNIP and the 2006 Water Supply _assessment prepared for the 2007 Master Plan, and determined that impacts would be less than significant. Further, in order to ensure that implementation of the 2007 Master Plan would not adversely impact groundwater supplies the 2007 HEIR identified the following mitigation measures to reduce the 2007 Master Plan's groundwater demand. 1111-1.13-1(a) The pefeet(oplicrlit shall include ulethodi of eater eolisoratioli ira the poposed1p jeet'.r buildiligs alid lalidrepil,. The.ie Method shall include, but riot be liulited, to the follovil,: • hisltill eater-eolisorirk, dish) shers alid vashil, machines, alid vater-efft,ierat celmalitiyd cooling !ystems ili all lie)), buildiligs (this Method)rould riot(Oply topoee s derelopnlelit or r'esear'ch der elopulelit laboratory equi�ulelit� • hisltill eater-eon.rerril?, iw--,bola .yVem (e.,., diri Z*I ligrtioli alid Err�pltlwlV. atiora- based i)7frtiora controllers) • Gary eater ir7rgatiolr .stein (as detailed ira Gelmal Mali Policy PF-7, but other eleuleliti of thatpoli�y do not6rpply here, such as vas/evatertreatulelat facilities)) • Der7,lr lalidsa *qg »zth dmlioht-r e.sr.itrlit alid other lo»-v ater-use plalitr • histall»,titer sal it, del ices such as v titer-eff aielit toilets, all etr, alid sho»erhead r 1111-1.13- The p'e eet 6��plicxlit shall in.rt�rll separ ate v ester uleter.i for buildiligs alid lalidsa it, for par 'tvli )rith r eater thali 10,000 �f h y io rted err ear. With the increased groundwater supply estimated by the SSFD, and incorporation of mitigation measures ALM4.13-1(a) and AB14.13-1(1)), build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater resources. Therefore, although changes in the circumstances of the 2007 Master Plan's implementation have occurred and new information has become available since certification of the City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 37 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 2007 HEIR, there will be no new potentially significant impacts or any increase the severity- of arty previously identified significant impacts on groundwater resources. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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 that 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 that would result in flooding on or off site? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, Colma Creek is the Citv's main natural drainage system. However, Colma Creek does not intersect the Stud- _area, nor does the project area drain to Colma Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the course of Colma Creek or any otlier waterway-. However, surface and stormwater runoff on the Stludv Area is collected I)v the Citv's storm drainage system and is discharged to San Francisco Bay- east of the project area. The existing storm drainage system in the project area is designed to accommodate flows from industrial development and takes into account the high ratio of impervious surfaces in the area. The proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the area with similar uses. The ratio of impervious surface area would remain constant with existing conditions, thereby not increasing runoff or stormwater flows over existing conditions. The Genentech storm drainage system consists of gravity- flow underground pipes and outfalls emptying into San Francisco Bay at various locations (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). The outfalls to the San Francisco Bay- are both above and below the mean high tide elevation of 3.1 feet. Chutfalls below the mean high tide water elevation are likely- to experience flooding when a lieavy storm event happens during high tide water elevations. However, construction of the proposed project would involve demolition of existing structures and pavement areas that currently-lielp to stabilize site soils. Bare, unprotected site soils could be subjected to the erosional forces of runoff during construction, potentially leading to siltation impacts in the San Francisco Bad-. N\Iien erosion and nun-off is controlled with the NPDES general permit for construction activities construction activities the impact would be considered less than significant. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans are an integral part of constnuction planning, and PR-1.13-1(a) and (b) are designed specifically to mitigate the impacts associated with construction nuui-off and reduce them to less than ssgnjficant. PR4.13-1(a) Purrualit to XPDEV /egllbe//le/atr, the p ject 6Ippliux/at sl)all derelop a QF/PPP pior to eon.rt/uetio/a to pm/ect v titer gllality du/i/, alid gfter eon.rt/uetio/a. The y/je t,S if"I'PP.ilr rll include, but/aot be li//lited to, the follov i/, //leasm e.i for the eon.rt/uctio/a pe/lodl: 38 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Elm • Emfl'ola eolatrollsoil st�abiliti�itiola techniques suclr as via)), llluUrilig, emsiola eolatrol blalikets, eay.irola eontaollllattilig, alad hyda seeding; shall be utilitiyd, ila accoa,lanee lint) the a'e ulations outlined ila the Assoeiatiola of Bray Aaea Gorea7alllelats (ABAG) fah wal of ,S�talnlaads forEmfl'ola a ln/,Sedilllelat Colatrol lleasmes. ,Silt f pees used ila eombillatiola llztlr fiber mlls shall be installed donna slope of all,gnided slopes. Fiber mlls shall be installed i/a the flon'path of gnnled CaaeCas aeceilila; coneelm ated flocs salad amulad stoaw (inlila inlets. • Bl1Ps foraerelatill, the dis h aae of other eonstar�etiola aerated �PI�E,Sollutalats be.izde sediplelat(i.e.,p ailat cow7'L'te, etc.) to do)nisme apl v aters • After eonstauetiola is completed, all (inliwr,e fsatilities shall be in.Veeted for aeeulllulated sedilllelrt, alad these dazailiaoe stauetmes sh all be cLaaed of debais alad.sedilllelat PR4.13-1(b) The 6��plicalat shall complete Cali Emfl'ola Contaol Mali to be submitted to the City of,South ,Scala Fi awiseo ila coljunetiola n'ith the Gazadil, Pealllit Applicatiola. The Emfl'ola Contaol Mali shall iwlude eontaols for llinteaiti�atioli, dust, emSioli, glad pollutiola ila aeeonlanee lint) the ABAG llanwal of,Staladaa'ls forEmfl'ola alad,Sedilllelat Contaol Aleasmes. The Mali shall also destw'be the Bl1Ps to be used dmigg glad follovill, eonstauetiola to eolatrolpollutiola aesultill,fivlll both stoaw alad eonstauctiola vCater nmv ff. The Phyla shall iwlude locations of r ehicle glad egmi glelat sl�i'/l,,pwable aevroollls, lllobiliti�itiola CaaeCas, alad plCanned access mutes. Public vmks stuff or aepesel&atires shall /iSit the site dmilio'onidilio salad eonstauetiola to enslave eomPlianee n7th the oa adill, onliluxlace aladplalis, salad laote any /iolations, ll'hiclr shall be eoa7eeted illllllediately. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with respect to drainage patterns. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. Furthermore, in accordance with the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures, the proposed project will comply with the new construction stormwater permit program requirements. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. Therefore, as there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, with implementation of the foregoing project requirements this impact would be less than signsflcant No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity El ® ❑ ❑ of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Surface and stormwater runoff in the Saidy Area is collected by the City's storm drainage system and is discharged to San Francisco Bay- east of the project area. The existing storm drainage system in the project area is designed to accommodate flows from industrial development and takes of the amount of existing impervious surfaces in the area. The proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the area with similar City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 39 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 uses. The enact uses of the buildings that could be developed are currently unknown, as a result potential sources of pollutants cannot be quantified. However, simply as a result of increased traffic, increased stormwater pollutants, such as copper and zinc from brake pads (Woodward-Clyde, 1994) or oil from leaking engines, may result in a potentially- significant change in storm water quality. As identified under Section IX(a)above, the San Mateo Court"-wide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These guidelines are regulated by the SSF1fC, General Plan, or other best management practices guidelines. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with respect to polluted runoff. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Furthermore, in accordance with the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would comply with the new stormwater construction permit requirements and San Mateo County's MS4 permit requirements for water discharges countywide. The 2007 HEIR identified PR4.13-1(a) and (b) to reduce constriction related impacts to water quality- and mitigation measures 1f114.13-2(a) throtigli (d) to ensure that operational impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements remain less than signilicantwith full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As identified under Section LX(a) above, the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Clecklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These guidelines are regulated by the SSF:NfC, General Plan, or other best management practices guidelines. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to water quality. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. The 2007 MEIR identified PR4.13-1(a) and (b) to reduce constriction related impacts to water quality and mitigation measures 1f114.13-2(a) through (d) to ensure that operational impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements remain less than significant with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. No additional anal ysis is required. 40 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Elm Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? Discussion No Impact. The 2007 Master Plan does not propose arty housing in the Study Area. Furthermore, the Stud- Area is not within the 100-year flood hazard area. However, the shoreline of the StLidv Area is considered a 100-rear flood hazard area by the City's General Plan (1999). Coastal flooding and ware action during a 100-year storm would inundate the narrow strip of shoreline bordering the Stud-Area to the east. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, and since, housing would not be placed within the 100-year flood hazard area with build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, there would be no impact No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, the Study Area is not within a FEMA- designated floodplain. However, the shoreline of the StLUd- Area is considered a 100-rear flood hazard area by the City's General Plan (1999). Coastal flooding and ware action during a 100-year storm would inundate the narrow strip of shoreline bordering the Study Area to the east. A wider strip of land just inland and along the shoreline is designated by the Bay- Conservation and Development Commission as the Bay Trail, a public open space area. For this reason, it is unlikely that development under the 2007 Master Plan would place stnictures directly on the shoreline. However, potential opportuuiity sites identified in the 2007 Master Plan are near the shoreline. Unlike flood flows along a drainage channel, flood flows at the shoreline would not travel a substantial distance on land. Coastal flood waters would nun up onto land and recede back to San Francisco Bay. The flow of coastal flood waters that encounter a building constnucted under full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would not be substantially obstructed or redirected because the path of flow, i.e., the width of the shoreline, is short. In addition, stnzctures that substantially impede flood flows, such as dams and levees,would not be constnucted under build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. There is no new information showing a new or more severe sigiiific nt effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regard to redirection of flood flows. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR the impact of City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 41 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 buUd-out of the 2007 IbmtrrPlao on flood flows nxnJd be conmidcrcd /exx than significant No additional unuknininrequired. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact U) Expose people or structures to o significant risk ofloss, injury ordeath F71 invoking flooding' including flooding as o result of the failure of levee ordam? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Potetitial opporturtity sites idetitified iii the 2007 Master Plart are ticar the nhosc|inc. Thus, structures ncur the nhorc|inc could potentially be exposed to coastal flooding. ||on/cvcr, buildings constructed in flood hazard urcun are required to comply rvirh the conntn/ction ntmdurdn contained in Chuptcr |5.56 of the SSpI|C. Scction |5.56.|4U of the SSpI|C identifies ntundurdn specific toconntn/ction iii coastal hl | huzurd areas. [)cvc|opuocntanhoJ| bc elevated above the flood level, aticliored, atid cortstructed of materials resistatit to flood damage. Tlitis, btilld-otit of the 2007 Master P|unrvou|d not czponc people or ntnicturcn to nubntmtioJ risks invoking flooding. The Study Area in not prone to Uooditig in the event of dam or |cvcc failure. pui|urc of nmuU-ncu|c |cvcc in the vicinity of the City rvou|d not rc|cunc u vo|uuoc of water nuch that the Study Area rvou|d become flooded. There in no nuv information nhmvingu nuv or more ncvcrc n iGcunt cttect beyond those idetitified iii the 2007 MEIR, atid tio stibstatitial cliatige iii the circtimstatices wider Nvlilcli the 2007 I|untcr P|un niU be imp|cuocntrd huvc occurred rvirh regard to dam or |cvcc failure. All previously adopted mitigations contiuuc to apply to the Project. The pscvioun|v certified 2007 I||l||ludcqoutr|v describe the impacts und mitigations unnociutrdrvirh the 2007 I|untcrP|un, und no 6urdicr cnvironuocntJ review inrcqoircd. \n there are nonubntuntiu| chungcnornuvinfonnution that wunnotknowoundcou|d tiot liave beert ktioNvii at the time of the certificatiort of the 2007 MEIR, t1iis impact Nvotild be cortsidered less than nt No udditionu| unoJynin in scqoiscd. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (j) Inundation byseiche' tsunami, ormudf|ovv? [l El IFE] El Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. As iduitJficd jn the 2007 I|[]|l there in u 1.5-niUion-pnOon storage scncnxoir on the top ofSuo Bruno ||U| that poses the greatest rink ofn6chc hazards in the Study Area. However, becatise the reservoir liolds a relativelv small voltime of water, water released dtiritig selclillig rvou|d be largely absorbed in the vegetated hillsides. Bccuonc the hiUnidcn are not very steep, the Uon/ of rvutcrrvou|d not be rapid. Also,wutcrrvou|d drain uwuy from the hiU instead ofponding uod resulting in hi*h water levels. Thus, ncichc iuundution impacts are considered to be less than signi6cant in the Study Area. 42 City ofSouth San Francisco Update to the Master E|R for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f'3084649 The northwestern portion of the Study Area in the Lower Campus could potentially be inundated by a tsunami. A few of the potential opportunity sites identified in the 2007 Master Plan are in the tsunami inundation zone. As such, the proposed project could expose people and stnuctures to the risk of inundation by tsunami. However, as described in Impact 42-3, buildings constricted in flood hazard areas are required to comply with the constniction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the SSFMC. Specifically, Section 15.56.140 identities standards specific to constniction in coastal high hazard areas, which include areas subject to inundation by tsunami. Developments shall be elevated above the flood level, anchored, and constricted of materials resistant to flood damage. Both Genentech and the City- have in place emergency services to respond to natural disasters. The City's emergency services are established in SSFIIC Chapter 2.72,which also provides for the preparation and implementation of plans for protection of people and property in the event of an emergency. Under the General Plan, the City's Emergency Response Plan serves as the guide for emergency management. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, compliance with the SSFNIC requirements would reduce potential impacts resulting from tsunami inundation to a less-than-slgni&cant level with build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, the potential for inundation by mudflow is considered low because the Stud-Area does not contain steep slopes of exposed soil. Hillsides in the Study_area, such as that of San Bruno Hill, are covered by development and/or landscaping. Rainfall onto these areas would encounter vegetation or impervious surfaces, and would not pose a risk of causing saturated soil to loosen and flow downhill. Thus, there would be no mudflow inundation impact on the Study Area. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regard to inundation. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. X. LAND USE/PLANNING Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion No Impact. Existing and future uses within the Study Area include commercial, manufacturing and research and development activities. These uses are consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities. No residential structures currently occupy the existing project site, and are not permitted in the East of 101 _area. No existing business or residential community would be displaced by the proposed project. _ass there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 43 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 not have bcutknonniut the time of the ccrtiGcutionof the 2UU7I|[]|l thcrcnxnJd be no In2pact No additional unuknininoc d. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of on agency with jurisdiction over the project (inc|uding' but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect? Discussion No Impact. As identified jn the 2007 I|[]|l the project is connintuitnidh ohon und gpoJn nJnntrd by the City of South Suo Francisco. [)cvc|opmcnt standards relatitig to bui|ditig height, Floor Area Ratio und park-ing rvithin the 2007 I|untcr P|un rvcrc not consistent Nvidh the P|unncd |nduntriu| District scgp|utionn that existed at the time the 2007 I||l||luod 2007 Master P|uorvcsc prepared. ||on/cvcr, as i I Gcdiii the 2007 IUR||L the Genentech Campus dcvc|opuocntntmdurdn putfonvurdiii the 2007 I|untcr P|un rvcrc dcniDncd to reflect the (}cncntrch R&[) {)vcduY standards, nlhich rvcsc updated in 2010 und are non/ called ''(}cncntcch I|untcr P|uo District" in the City's Zonitig Ordinance. The (}cncntcch Ibmtcr P|uo [)intrictnms czpuodcd to jnc|udc the (}cncntcch property cunzndvNvidin the boundaries of the P|uoncd |ndunt6oJ District /nmv the Bunincnn 8c Technology Park Zoning [)int6cH as part of the approval of the 2UU7 Master P|un. Annuch, uoY6uturcdcvc|opuocnt associated rvirh the bui|d- outof the 2UU7 Master P|unrvou|dbcnubcctto the SourhSunpruncincoI|unicipu| Code, inc|udingthe Genentech I|untcr P|un District standards. Bui|d-out of the 2007 I|untcr P|un NviU be cvoJuutcd for consistency nidh the (}cncntcch I|untcr P|uo District uod Bunincnn uod Technology Park District Stundurdn iii the S|l|;L \dditionoJkr {)n October 6, 2011, BC[)C approved Bay P|un \uocnduocntNo. 1-08 (referred to as the "C|iomtc Chuog7 Buy P|uo \uocnduocnt`\ to address climate change und to update |ung)ugc on ncu |cvc| rise policy. The Climate Chuoge Bay P|uo Auocnduocnt rvun based on the vu|ncrubi|itY unncnnuocnt prepared byBC[)C staff in2UU8, titled Li,i4Xx,ith aRilsi:o8acfl'll/hc/a6@4' yadAuL >I�idon /njanF-ixnci/m 8qT «ndon //zl6mclinc (as revised rhrou*h September 23, 2U||),rvhichrvun based onu predicted sea level rise of 16 inches by mid-ccnturY uod 55 inches by the cnd of the century. The Climate Change BuYP|uo \uocnduocntuddcd u nuv C|iuoutc Change Section to the BuyP|un, und uuocndcd Bay P|un findings und Polices related to tidal marshes und tidal flats, safety offills, nhosc|incprotcctionuodpub|ic access. The project's connintrncyrvirh the BC[)C Bay Pho, inc|uJitnr the October 2011 C|bnutc Chnnpc Bay Pho AuocnduocntniU be cvuuutcd in the S|l||l. |n addition, u dctrnninution or conncrvu6xc estimate of the potential muguitudc of future ncu |cvc| rise in nccdcd to unncnnJoobeotial]r timpuctn related to ncu |cvc| rise und to idcntifv uoi tion uocunuscn found to be appropriate to uddscnn the impact(s) und rviU be further studied iii the S|l||l. SB 375, nlhich cntubUnhcn uocchuninmn for the dcvc|opuocnt of regiortal targets redticitig punncngcr vehicle (}||(}n, rvun adopted by the State on September 30, 2008. {)n September 23, 2010, CA|UB adopted the vehicular (}||(}n reduction targets that rvcrc developed in consultation nidh the 44 City ofSouth San Francisco Update to the Master E|R for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f'3084649 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (1IPOs); the targets require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each 1IP0. SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant GHG reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation alternatives. Throtigh the SB 375 process, 1IP()s would work with local jurisdictions in the development of Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way- that reduces GHG emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectives. Build-out of the 2007 Master Plan will be evaluated for consistency with reduction targets adopted for SB 375 in the SEIR. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? Discussion No Impact. The proposed project is not subject to any habitat conservation plans or other plans. The proposed project is not in conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As there are no substantial changes in circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, no impact would occur. No additional analysis is required. X1. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? Discussion No Impact. The proposed project site is not known to have any mineral resources that may be of value to this region of the state, including as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, no smpactwould occur. No additional analysis is required. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 45 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the pro/ectresu|tin: (o) ��u� � ��m � orgen�ot�n �n�e |e�bin �� � � �� El El standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Discussion Less-Than-SignificuntImpact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction Conntn/ction impacts unnociutcdrvirh full bui|d-out of the 2007 I|untcr P|un rvcrc cvoJuutrd in the 2007 IUR|D und found to be |cnn thun niguiGcuot. Conntniction activities occucringrvithin the Study Area rvou|d involve excavation uod gcuJitip activities 6zUon/cd by conntniction of the proposed facilities uod associated puc[ingun rvcU as roadway uod |undncupingimprovcuocntn, nliichrvou|d involve the unc of hccn)r cqoipuocnt. Conntn/ction activities rvou|d also involve the unc of smaller power tools, generators, und other cqoipuocnt that are sources ofnoinc. ||uo| trucks using the local roadways rvou|d genccutr noincunthcy move oJong the road. |Ruch stage ofconntnictionrvou|dinvo|vcudiffercnt mix ofopccuting cqoipuocnt, und noinc |cvc|n rvou|d vary based on the mnount uod typcn ofcqoipuocnt in operation uod the |ocutionof the uctivitY. Scnni6xc uncn that nxou|d be affected (dcpcnditig on the distance from the project site) by the construction noinc occunritig as u scnuh of the proposed project inc|udc the Larkspur Landing Hotel, nli1ch in located upproziuoutc|v 2,000 feet from the nordnvcnt boundunr of the Studv Area, uod the scccndv developed (}cncntcch chi|dcusc ccntcr |ocutrd onAUcrton Aorcnuc. Construction noinc |cvc|n at the Lurk-npurLunding ||otc| rvcrc anticipated to be upproziuoutc|v 54d8\. As identified in the 2007 IDR|D' no construction uctivitYrvou|d occurrvirhin 200 feet of the (}cncntrch childcare center, und noise levels rvou|dbcuoticiputcdtobc approximately 74dB\. AdditionoJkc wider Section 8.32.0506k of the SSpI|C, conntn/ction activities are limited to bctvccn the hours of 8:00 --\.\| to 8:00 pa| on weekdays, 9:00 --\.\| to 8:00 pa| on Sutt/rduvn, uod |U:UU --\.\| to 6:00 pa| on Stitidays uod hoUdcnn. Construction noise dhutoccurn Jnritnrdhcnc hours is exempt from the City's Noise {)rdirtuncc bccuonc rhcnc houm are outside of the recogrtized n|ccp houm for scnidcnta uod outside of cvcningund early uoorninghourn und time periods rvhcrc residents are most sensitive to cztcriornoinc. CortseqtietitIv, the City cortsiders impacts restiltitig from cortstructiort tiolse dtiritig these liotirs to be less rhunn iGcunt. To 6urdicrscducc noinc |cvc|n ut the Lurknpur |aoditigHotel uod the (}cncntrch chUdcurc center, the 2007 I||R|D identified procct rcqoircuocnt PD4.4-1 und mitigation uocunurcn I|I14.4-1k6 through IL\14.4-1/6: 46 City ofSouth San Francisco Update to the Master BR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f-3084649 PR4.4-1 All eon.rtnaim aetirzty )ithzra the City .shall be lim'ted to bet»eeli the hours of 8:00AA1 to 8:00 P.w oli rreekdayr, 9:00 Ail to 8:00 P.w oli Satlnig).r, alid, 10:00 Ail to 6:00 P.w oli Sulidayr and holidays. 1111-1.-1-1(a) The p feet (oplicalit .shall require by contract .V)et,zfzcatioli that the follo»iri, eon.itryletiora best Plana,ePlelitpaa'zeer (B IPs) be Z'mpleuleiated by eolMactori to reduce eon.rtruaioli lioz.re lerelr: • T»o )reeks pz*or to the coululelaceulelit of eon.rtructioli, liotifrurtioli Plust be porzded to ur7 urrdir, laud uses dis lo.lrr, the eon.itrrletioli .schedule, zntludil?, the rmz*ou.r types of aetilztzer that»,ould be occllw'lig thmll'9 hoot the duratioli of the eon.rtrrvetioli poz*od • Ensure that eon.rtruetioli equi�ulelitZ*S p perly Muffled aeeor,#q to zradu.rtry .standards • Place noire, eneratil, eon.rtruetioli equipulelrt aid locate eon.rtruetiolr .ita,ir,area.i a»ay /ON/ rens7tire user, »here f arzble • ,Schedule hfh ra0z.re7rAueiri, aa'ilztier bet»eeli the hour's of 8:00Aw alid 5:00 P.w to uli aiulitiy disnlptioli oli selisitir e u'se'r • Impleuleiat liozre attelauatioli Plea'sure's to the eNtelit f arzble, »hzCh Play include, but are riot liPlzted to, lioz.re bar 7zers or lioz.re blaliketr 1111-1.-1- The p'e eet(opliuxlit shall require by eolma t.Vet,zfrurtion.r that eon.rtrrletioll stairs, areas alolio vith the operatioli of earthPlolzl, equipPlelrt)ithzrr the lIEIR StAy Area»could be located as far r» xy fivP1 rzbratiolr alid liozre sen.�7tzre site's as possz'ble. Contract .V)et,zfurtiolis .shall be included zra the eon.rtruetioli doeuPlelitr, »hzCh.shall be relze»ed by the City pz*orto z.ssualice ofa, r dilio po lit. 11111.1 1(� The pfect (oplicxiat.shall require by colma t �e�ifzcatiolis that healzly loaded trrvck.i used dual, eon.rtruetioli »could be routed a»ay f vPZ lioz.re- alid 1zbratio1a-se1iszW1'e u'se'r, to the etitelit posfl'ble. Contr act.V)et,zfrurtiolis.shall be included zli the eon.rtrrletioli docuPlelrti, ))Inch .shall be relze)red by the City z*or to issuance of a rAilig peiwit There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Since constnzction noise associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be reduced where feasible, and because constniction noise is exempted by the provisions of the SSFMC, this impact would be less than significant No additional anal ysis is required. Operation Large HVAC systems associated with new buildings in the Stud- Area can result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dB A Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. The HV AC equipment installed under the proposed project could generate noise levels that average between 57 to 72 dB A CNEL at 50 feet when the equipment is operating constantly over 24 hours. These HV AC units would be mounted on the rooftops of the proposed buildings and would be screened from view by building features. As such, occupants of the proposed childcare center would not be exposed to noise levels above the Citv's 75 dBA CNEL limit established for industrial land uses, which is the land use designation for the Stud- _area. Similarly-, as the Larkspur Landing Hotel is located approximately- 2000 feet from the northwest boundary of the Study Area, the noise levels generated by the HV AC equipment associated with the new buildings would be approximately- 42 dBA CNEL at the Larkspur Landing Hotel. There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 47 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 have been ktio«%n at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Since the noise levels that N ould be experienced by the sensitive receptor nearest to the Study Area would be below the 50 dB A CNEL standard for night-time use, this impact would be less than significant No additional analysis is required. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to noise exposure. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ® ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction Constniction activity has the potential to generate groundborne vibration that could potentially- impact sensitive receptors, and vibration sensitive uses, including researcli facilities. Given the distance of the Larkspur Landing Hotel, from the Study Area, the vibration levels experienced at the property could reacli up to approximately 51 VdB. Further, no constriction activity is proposed within 200 feet of the Genentech childcare center. Even if construction were to occur closer to these sensitive receptors, the constriction would have to be within approximately 25 feet of the use to exceed the 85 VdB threshold utilized in the 2007 HEIR. As no off-site sensitive uses are calculated to be within 25 feet of constriction activity at any location, groundborne vibration would not exceed the FTA's vilbration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance, therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Genentech use research equipment that may be especially vibration sensitive. The threshold for vibration sensitive equipment is 66 VdB. Constnzction activities have the potential to occur within 25 feet of buildings containing vibration sensitive equipment. This would potentially expose the equipment to vibration levels up to 87 VdB, which exceeds the 66 VdB threshold; therefore, this impact is potentially significant In order to reduce this impact, the 2007 HEIR identified mitigation measures 11111. 1-2(a) and 1111-1.-1-2(b) as follows: 11114.4-2(a) P/ior to tl/e eopmeneenle/at of,gmllli l clean*lio atli/ztie.i, tl/e f/efeet 6�fliux/at skill eoliduet a f/e- eon.rt/uetio/a surrey to detomirae //hetber tl/e eon.rt/rletio/a /jeet'.i acti/zties )rouldl impact /zbn1tio/a ielisitir e equifuletat located i/a a�'ace/at buildi/gr )nW)i/a 100-feet of tl/e eon.rt/uetio/a reti/ity. If it i.r detoWined tl)at/ao impact)rould occur then eon.rt/uetio/a a tilitie.i shall begin alid /ao fi/ther actio/a need be 1�ikeli. 1111-1.4-2(b) If tl/e p jest(Iffliudrat detomines that/ib/atio/a .ielisitire equifnle/at 1)as tl/e fote/atial to be qff eted, it sl)all implenle/at a eon.rt/rletio/a .i)edule to ensure tl)at eon.rt/uaio/a a ti/ztier )rould oeeur du/iq tinlei//l)e/a /zbnitio/a sensiti/e equifnle/at//,ould/aot be i/a use. 48 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. With implementation of mitigation measures 11114.4-2(a) and 11114.4-2(b), the potentially significant impact to vibration sensitive equipment associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Operation During operation of the proposed project, background operational vibration levels would be expected to average around 50 VdB, as discussed previously in this section. This is substantially- less than the 85 VdB threshold for people in the vicinity of the project site. Groundborne vibration resulting from operation of the proposed project would primarily be generated by trucks making periodic deliv ries to the Study _area. However, these types of deliveries would be consistent with deliveries that are currently made along roadways in the project vicinity to the existing Genentech Campus and would not increase groundborne vibration above existing levels. Because no substantial sources of groundborne vilbration would be built as part of the proposed project, no vibration impacts would occur during operation of the proposed project. There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors on or off site to excessive groundborne vilbration or groundborne noise levels,and this impact would be less than significant There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to vibration exposure. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. The 2007 MEIR identified that roadways in the vicinity of the Genentech Campus would experience a change in roadNvay noise levels due to the increased traffic anticipated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. The HEIR established that an increase in 3 dBA CNEL along any roadway- would constitute a significant impact. As described in the 2007 HEIR, four roadNvay segments are expected to experience a significant increase over existing conditions, with a maximum increase of 4.1 dBA CNEL. All other roadway segments in the project vicinity would not experience increase in traffic-related noise above the 3.0 dB A CNEL threshold of significance. However, it should be noted these roadNvav segments would not be located adjacent to any- existing or proposed sensitive uses. As the impacted roadNvays would not expose noise sensitive receptors to a substantial permanent increase in noise levels, the 2007 MEIR determined that this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable, and that no feasible mitigation was available to reduce this impact. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 49 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Because no substantial changes have arisen and no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR has been made available, however, the analysis and conclusions in the 2007 HEIR remain sound and no further analysis would be required in the SEIR. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels El ❑ ® ❑ in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Construction The construction activities associated with the proposed project would only occur during the permitted hours designated in the SSFIIC. In addition, as discussed in Section XII(a), constriction noise that occurs within the permitted time frames is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance. There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Due to this exemption, the temporary increases in ambient noise at off-site locations associated with constriction activities of the proposed project would be less than significant No additional analysis is required. Operation Operation of the proposed project would not require periodic use of special stationary equipment that would expose off-site sensitive receptors to an increase in ambient noise levels above those existing without the proposed project. There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Therefore, there would be no temporary or periodic noise impacts to off-site receptors due to operation of the proposed project and no impactwould occur. No additional analysis is required. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regard to temporary increases in ambient noise levels. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no furtlier environmental review is required. 50 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 11M,11 1111111111 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) For project located within on airport land use plan or,where such [l El 1:1 H o plan has not been adopted,within 2 miles ofo public airport or public use airport, the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) For pro/ectwithin the vicinity ofo private airstrip, the exposure of people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion No Impact. The Study Area in located approximately 13 miles from the Sun pcuncnco |ntrniutonu Airport. Noise uocunurcuocnta taken on site jn pocpuruton of the 2007 IDR||l nhon/cd the ambient |cvc|n at the site to be 71 dBA duringduYtiuoc hours uod contour|cvc|n from the East of|U| ArcuP|un indicate that the czponusc |cvc| at the project site in |cnn dhuo 65 dBA CN[].. |nuddition, no scnidcnccn currently, or are p|uoncd to, exist rvidhin the StudvArea. AdditionoJkc the proposed project site in not located rvirhin the vicinitYofu private airstrip. There are no nubntmtioJchnnpcnornuvinfonnuton that wunnotknonniuodcou|dnot have bccnknonniut the time of the ccr6Gcutionofthe 2007 IDR||l. Thcrcfbrc, the proposed procctrvou|dnot expose people rcnidilig orrvorkitig in the project area to czccnnivc noise |cvc|n, und no impact rvou|d occur. No additional unuknininrequired. XIII. POPULATION/HOUSING Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (o) Induce substantial population growth inon area, either directly (for f7l example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrostructure)? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. The 2007 IDR||lidcntiGcd dhut (}cncntrch employed approximately 6,658 cuop|oyccn in the |lunt of |U| Area. With the 6uU bui|d-out of the 2007 I|untcr P|uo, the ncn/ dcvc|opuocnt could incrcunc the uuuobcr of employees to upproziuoutc|v 13,319, or upproziuoutc|v 6,661 nctncn/ employees. An of 2011, Getietitech has approximatelv 9,000 emplovees, atid full btilld-otit of the 2007 Master P|unrvou|d scnuhin upprozimutr|y4,3|9 nctncn/ cuop|oyccn. Accorditig to the Association of Bay Area (}ovcrnuocntn L\BA(}\, Regional Comprehensive P|un projections the City's total cuop|oymcnt nuuobcr in uoticiputrd to incscunc to 48,290 by 2020. The nct incrcunc of approximately 4,319 cuop|oyccn resulting from bui|d-out of Gcncntcch`n 2007 I|untcr P|un rvou|d represent approximately 8 percent of the City's projected employment in the year 2020. ||on/cvcr, full bui|d-out of the 2007 Ibntcr P|uo rvou|d g7nccutc negligible nuv population in the City as itrvou|d not develop arty nuvrcnidcntiu|uncn. City ofSouth San Francisco Update to the Master BR for the 51 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f-3084649 Further, according to the City's current Housing Element, adopted in February 2010, between 2000 and 2008, the population of South San Francisco grew from 60,552 to 63,744, outpacing growth in San Mateo Count- as a whole but slightly lagging population increase in the Bay-Area region. Looking to the future, ABAG predicts that South San Francisco will reach a population of nearly 70,000 I)v 2020. Genentech serves both local and regional roles; the Genentech Campus is a major high- teclinol<<g /biotechnology anchor in the East of 101 _area and, due to its size, it also pro�-ides the region with a firm establishment in the biotechnology industry and its resulting economic benefits. Thus,while the increase in non-residential uses as proposed under build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would further exacerbate the existing jobs-housing ratio within the City, existing City- documents recognize the integral role that Genentech and its resulting services provide to the City and the region. Additionally, residential uses are not permitted in the East of 101 _area. N\11le build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a net increase of approximately 4,319 employees, the increase in employees would represent only 7 percent of the City's anticipated population growth. Thus, as analyzed in chapter 4.11 of the 2007 HEIR, the majority of additional housing demand that could be generated under buildout of the 2007 Master Plan would be filled in surrounding communities within the region, but not necessarily within the City. _although the jobs-housing balance is a noteworthy measure for land use planning purposes, the Cit< does not have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to population growth. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. Because there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, and because Genentech's continued employment growth would serge to balance regional needs between jobs and housing, this impact will remain less than significant No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? Discussion No Impact. Residential uses are not permitted in the East of 101 Area. As South San Francisco's employment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major share of South San Francisco's new non-residential development. As no residential uses exist in the Study _area, implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing housing. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Therefore, there would be no impact No additional analysis is required. 52 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (o) 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 ofthe public services: U> Fire protection? f7l Discussion Impact. Fire Station #62 in the choncntntution to the Stuukr Area und is located nidhin uni|c, at 249 ||urborWav Fire Station #62 provides all Grntscnponnc ncoiccn to the area East of US-|U|, uodwou|d also provide first ccnponnc to uny cuocrgcncy at the Study Area upon full buUd-out of the 2007 I|untrrP|un. puU bui|d-out of the 2007 I|untrrP|un in the Study ArcuniU incrcunc usage by comnu/tcm, uodpotcntiu||vprcncntncry Gsc und life safety risks to the people. An future projects under the 2007 I|untrrP|un are developed, fire rcqoircuocntn rvou|d be uoulyzcd for each individual bui|dilig based on the size, tYpc of conntn/c�on, uod fire nprin|jcr nyntcuo unnociutcd n�dh dhc bui|ditlg. p|on/ |d � rvo |d also be cd n order to scqoircocnta for pipc|incn und hydcuntn specific to each buii � i dctcnninc if the local nyntcuo cart udcqoutr|y hund|c the Gsc Uon/ nccdn. If the local nyntcuo in fbund undcrnizcdordctcriocutitig, thcn the pipc|incnrvou|dbc modified byupnizing, nuvco till cctionn, uodor the itistallatiort of ptimps atid tatiks to stipply the tieNv recluiremetits. As full btilld-otit of the 2007 Master P|uo rvou|d constitute u negligible incrcunc in the City's population, und rvou|d not rcnuh in South Sall Francisco |isc [)cpurtnncnt'n jnubUitY to muntain acceptable ncnicc ratios, ocnponnc times, or other performance obcctivcn. There in no ncnrinfbnnution nhonritigu ncn/ or more ncvcrc n iGcuotcffect bcyond those idcntiGcdjnthe 2007IDR|D' uodno nubntuntialchungcin the circumntunccnundcrnlhIch the 2007 Master P|unniU be imp|cuocntcd have occurrcdrvirh regard to fire protection services. All previously adopted ti p tion n con ti c t o apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 IR| l udcqoutc|v describe the impacts uod uoi tionn associated rvirh the 2007 I|untcr Plan, uod no further cnvironuocntu| rcviuv in required. There are no nubntuntiu| changes in the circuuontunccn or nuv information dhutnms not koonni uod could not have bccn koormi at the time of the certification of the 2007 IDR||l. An the cunrntrcnponnc tiuocn und ncoicc ratios are udcqoutc, und no ncnr facilities that rvou|d rcnuh in potential n iGcunt impacts rvou|d be scqoiscd, this impact rviU remain less-than- s�gnjficant. No additiortal artalysis is reqtilred. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant °wxtigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (ii) Police protection? 171 Discussion D.eoo-T]zuo-Biroificuot Impact. The SoudhSun Francisco (}utcru Pho U999\ cntubUnhcn policies 8.5- (}| to 8.5-G2 to provide police ncoiccn that are scnponnivc to citizen's nccdn to utsurc u nu6e uod nccurc City ofSouth San Francisco Update to the Master BR for the 53 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study 3f-3084649 environment for people and property in the community; and to assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community design. As implementation of the proposed project would constitute a negligible increase in the City's population, and would not result in SSFPD's inability- to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to police protection. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. There are no substantial changes in circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. As the current response times and service ratios are adequate, and no new facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required, this impact will remain less-than-slgni&cant. No further analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ (iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ (v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion No Impact. Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would generate negligible new population in the City as it would not develop any new residential uses. The proposed project would not impact any performance objective of school, park, or other public services, nor would it result in impacts associated with the provision of new or physically- altered facilities. There are no substantial changes in circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR.No smpactwould occur. No additional analysis is required. XV. RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion No Impact. The South San Francisco General Plan requires 0.5 acre of park per 1,000 new employees in employment areas or payment of in-lieu fees. As identified in the 2007 Master Plan, the Genentech 54 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Campus has a unique open space network that includes the recently completed San Francisco Bay- Conservation and Development Commission's (BCD(.) San Francisco Bayshore Trail along the edge of the San Francisco Bad-, San Bruno Hill and the Wind Chime Sculpture Parr. Chapter 3, Section 3.5 (O pert Space) of the 2007 Master Plan identities goals and policies to maintain public open space for both the San Francisco Bayshore Trail and the Wind Chime Sculpture Parr, as well as pedestrian linkages and passive open space areas within the Stud-_area. There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. As the 2007 Master Plan maintains existing public open space and provides for improved open space amenities within the Genentech Campus,no lmpactwould occur. No additional analysis is required. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 nonmotorized 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? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact As identified in the 2007 MEIR, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in the following ten stud- intersections operating unacceptably- (i.e., from LOS E to F, or with an increase of delay- of fire seconds or more at LOS E or F intersection) during either the AM or Pal peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive • Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard • Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue • East Grand_venue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard • East Grand Avenue/Allerton avenue • East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive • Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue • South_airport Boulevard/Gatewav Boulevard Mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 HEIR to reduce potential impacts associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. To promote vehicle trip reduction through public transportation, walking, and bicvcling, the 2007 Master Plan includes a transportation demand management (TD:N ) program. Since the 2007 HEIR, the City- has approved an additional 3.25 million sf of new development within the East of 101 Area that was not evahTated in the HEIR, including the Ouster Point Development (Phase 1) consisting of 10,00 sf of commercial uses, 1,040,499 sf of research and City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 55 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 development uses, and 240,000 sf of office uses. Additionally, improvements identified in the 2007 HEIR as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan have been reviewed by the City- and have been recommended for modification or improvements. Therefore, However, because the Genentech Campus has not been deg-eloped to fiill capacity- approved by the 2007 Master Plan, the full build-out would generate vehicle trips above what is experienced by the community currently, and could potentially conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy related to LOS. This issue will be further analyzed in the SEIR. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. In addition to the City's thresholds regarding traffic, the Congestion Management Program ((.:NIP) of San Mateo Count- identities local arterial roadways as designated routes. The project may result in an increase in traffic along these routes sufficient to exceed the level of service standards establislied in the C11P. Project-related increases in traffic could be potentially signifcantand will be further evaluated in the SEIR. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase El ❑ ® ❑ in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Study Area is located approximately 13 miles north of SFLA. The entire Study Area is within the Federal Aviation administration (FAA) height limits for the SFLA. The proposed project does not propose any changes that would affect the SF() airport or fliglit operations and does not propose any structures of substantial height to interfere with existing airspace or fliglit patterns. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to air traffic. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been lriown at the time of the certification of the 2007 :NIEIR,and this would remain a less-than-significant impact. No additional analysis is required. 56 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp ❑ ❑ ® ❑ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in development of similar uses which are compatible and complimentary to the existing surrounding uses on the Genentech campus. Build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would not include any- uses that would be hazardous to existing uses. Genentech would have overall responsibility for the design and constriction of the proposed project, and will ensure conformance with traffic, pedestrian, and bicvcle safety- standards established by the City. The project design plans would be reviewed by the Cite- Traffic Engineering Department to ensure compliance with all vehicle, pedestrian, and bicvcle accessibility- and design requirements. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to design features. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. In consideration of the project's compatibility with surrounding uses and the incorporation of design features to ensure traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle safety, the project impact would be less than significan t Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. As with existing conditions, emergency vehicle access to the Study Area would be from Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand venue, with connections to Gull Drive, Forbes Boulevard, and Grandview Drive. The onsite roadway- infrastnicture and parking areas are currently and would continue to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access. Vehicle access drives to/from and within the Study Area are currently and would continue to be designed to meet the City- of South San Francisco design requirements for emergency vehicle accessibility. Genentech will have overall responsibility for the design and constriction of the proposed project, and will ensure conformance with City- standards. The project design plans would be reviewed by the City- Traffic Engineering Department to ensure compliance with all accessibility and desigil requirements. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to emergency access. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 57 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 review is required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. In consideration of the incorporated design features to ensure adequate emergency- access, the project would continue to have a less-than-slgni&cantimpact upon emergency-access. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. In consideration of the fact that the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would include TD11, consistent with existing TDAI programs incorporated by Genentech, and would be designed to accommodate and encourage bicycle and pedestrian connections and access/use throughout the Genentech Campus, the project would result in a less than significant effect upon these alternative transportation modes. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regards to public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The previously- certified 2007 HEIR adequately- describe the impacts associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. There are no substantial changes III the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Since the City has a TDAI ordinance and requires implementation of TDA1 programs, development of the project would continue to have a less-than signilicantimpact on alternative transportation as the project is expected to exceed the City's TDAI requirements. No additional anal ysis is required. XVII. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City of South San Francisco recently completed the East of HighNvay 101 Sewer System Master Plan Update (2011 SSAIP) in November 2011. The 2011 SS11P included anticipated development projected with fiill build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, as well as 58 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 14 i development of the Oyster Point Business Parr and Marina, and the Gateway? Business Parr. As identified in Table 1 of the 2011 SSMP, under 2005 conditions, the East of 101 Area average dry weather sewer flows were estimated to be 1.70 mgd and fiiture average dry weather flows for the year 2030 are anticipated to reach 3.58 mgd, an increase of 12 percent. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in approximately 029 mgd increase over existing (2005) conditions, or less than 8 percent of the total East of 101 Area dry weather flows. Further, and as identified in the 2011 SSMP, planned improvements to the Oyster Point Trunk, the Gateway Trunk and the Harbor Way Trunk, as well as implementation of the recommendations identified in the 2002 and 2007 SSMP's will serve to mitigate existing capacity- deficiencies and provide capacities for servicing future growth and redevelopment in the East of 101 Area, including full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. As a result, the incremental increase of 0.29 mgd to the collection system will remain less than significant No additional analysis is required. The South San Francisco and San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (NVQCP), located in South San Francisco, will serge the proposed project. The NVQCP operates under NPDES No. C A0038130 and Waste Discharge Requirements R2 2003-010. The current facility- has an average dry weather flow capacity to provide secondary- level treatment for 13.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater from the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, portions of the city- of Daly- City, and the Town of Colma. The NVQCP can handle a peak hourly-wet weather flow of 62 mgd. The City currently does not limit the amount of flow or the peak pollutant concentrations that industries can discharge. However, the East of 101 Area Plan requires projects in the East of 101 Area that are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to lower their treatment needs through recycling, on-site treatment, grai-water irrigation, and other programs where feasible. Manufacturing, processing, and research activities in the Stud- Area generate wastewater contaminated with pollutants that the NVQCP was not designed to treat. Thus, for such wastewater flows, Genentech operates its own on-site waste treatment and neutralizations systems (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). _additionally, Genentech operates its own water purification systems to produce high quality-water for use in its manufacturing_ processes. Chi-site utilities are primarily located within buildings and underground. Current flows to the NVQCP are approximately- 10 mgd, while the permitted capacity of the plant is 13.4 mgd (Waste Discharge Requirements R2 2003-0010). The projected increase in dry weather flows from build-out of the 2007 Master Plan to the NVQCP would not exceed the NVQCP capacity. As there are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact would remain less than signi ficant. No additional analysis is required. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 59 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. The full build-out of the Genentech Campus Neill require new drainage structures and localized on-site storm drain systems. However, the amount of stormwater created in the Stud- Area would not increase above existing conditions because the amount of impervious surfaces would be approximately the same as existing conditions. Because no additional stormwater runoff would be created, no additional stormwater would need to be accommodated in existing stormwater drainage facilities, and no expansion of stormwater drainage facilities would be warranted. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regard to storm drain systems. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply- to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately- describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact would remain less than slgni&cant. No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ® ❑ ❑ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described above under Section IX(b), the California Water Service Company- (CNVSC) owns and operates the South San Francisco District (SSFD),which serves the City- of South San Francisco including the proposed project, the City- of Colma, a portion of Daly City- and Broadmoor, and an unincorporated area of San Mateo Count-. Ceti%SC also operates tvo otlier districts on the San Francisco peninsula: Bear Gulch District and Mid-Peninsula District. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPU(.) provides approximately- 90 percent of the CNVSC supply- during normal rears. CNVSC may allocate the SFPUC allotments among the three districts Ceti%SC operates on the Peninsula. _fin additional 10 percent of the CNVSC supply-comes from reservoirs and a groundwater system operated by Cti%SC. Cal Water estimates that the average population for 2010 in the SSFD is approximately- 58,658. The SSFD estimates that residential water use represents the largest customer class (85.5 percent) in the District, vet even with the number of services involved, residential customers use averages only- 36.5 percent of the water served in the District. In comparison, commercial services represent 60 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 11.8 percent of total services and industrial 0.4 percent However, they represent 41.6 percent and 8.5 percent of total demand, respectively. The SSFD water supply is a combination of purchased water obtained from the SFPUC and groundwater produced from C.NVSC owned wells. Table 2 (SSFD _ vailal)le NVater Supplies [afy]) summarize the projected water supply sources throtigh 2040. Table 2 SSFD Available Water Supplies (afy) Water Supply Source 2010(Actual) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 8,013 7,612 7,130 7,393 7,669 7,959 8,264 Groundwater 452 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Total Water Supply 8,465 9,297 8,665 8,928 9,204 9,494 9,799 SOURCE: California Water Service Company,2010 Urban Water Management Plan,South San Francisco District (adopted June 2011),p.44,Table 4.1-1. The water distribution system in the East of 101 Area was designed and constricted to meet industrial water demands. The water mains entering the Genentech Campus include a 12-inch line in Forbes Boulevard, a 12-inch line in East Grand venue, and a new 10-inch high-pressure line in Grandview Drive. These piping systems are fed from the C.NVSC 18-inch main supply line located along US-101. The water system in the Upper Campus is atigmented I)y a 1.5-million-gallon storage reservoir on the top of San Bruno Hill. The pipe and flow capacity for these pipes in their present condition generally meet the current domestic water flow requirements. The full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in increased amount of office uses while decreasing the amount of manufacturing uses. Although the proposed project would increase the usable square footage of the project site 1)v more than 2.4 million sf, the t<-pes of uses would be different, resulting in a lower water use per square foot ratio. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, the project site uses 0.42 rrgd. The proposed project would result in a demand of 0.71 rrgd, resulting in a 029 rrgd increase in water demand. N\Iiile there is some potential for the C.NVSC and SFPUC to experience water shortages, there would be enough water for the proposed project based on current supply levels during normal to wet years. N\Iiile the proposed project's effect on water supply is not a significant effect under CEQ_A,, there are measures that the City could encourage Genentech to implement or impose as conditions of approval. Mitigation measures MM4.13-1(a) throtigh 1111-1.13-1(c), as described albove under Section IX(l)), would reduce the proposed project's contribution to the total water demand. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 61 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that El ❑ ® ❑ 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? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in approximately 029 mgd increase over existing (2005) conditions, or less than 8 percent of the total East of 101 Area dry weather flows. Further, and as identified in the 2011 SS:N P planned improvements to the Oyster Point Tnuik, the Gateway? Trunk and the Harbor Way Trunk, as well as implementation of the recommendations identified in the 2002 and 2007 SS:NIP's will serge to mitigate existing capacity deficiencies and provide capacities for servicing future growth and redevelopment in the East of 101 Area, including full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. As a result, the incremental increase of 0.29 mgd to the collection system is less than significant Current flows to the NVQCP are approximately- 10 mgd, while the permitted capacity of the plant is 13.4 mgd (Waste Discharge Requirements R2 2003-0010). The projected increase in dry weather flows from build-out of the 2007 1laster Plan to the NVQCP would not exceed the NVQCP capacity. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regard to wastewater treatment capacity. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact would remain less than significant No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. The South San Francisco Scavenger Company (Scavenger) is contracted by the City- of South San Francisco as the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the City-. Scavenger transports all solid waste from the Stud- Area to the Blue Line Material Recovery Facility-/Transfer Site (1IRF/TS). The 1IRF/TS has a permitted capacity- of 1,200 tons per day, but currently- receives an average of 600 to 700 tons per day. Otice the useable materials have been separated at the 1IRF/TS, the remaining trasli is then transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary-Landfill. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill can accept up to 3,598 tons per dad- (('.IN\'1IB 2006x). As of 2000, the 62 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 landfill has exceeded its permitted capacity of 37.9 million cubic yards by 6.7 million cubic yards (17.8 percent). However, the closure date is planned for 2018. Development under the build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in an additional 2,773 tons of solid waste per year (approximately 10 tons per day), representing approximately 2 percent and 0.28 percent of the permitted maximum amount accepted at the Blue Line :NIRF/TS and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, respecti�-ely. The remaining capacity of the 1fRF/TS would be able to accommodate the additional solid waste. Furthermore, as identified in the 2007 HEIR, the Scavenger Company has stated that a doubling of the Genentech South San Francisco Campus and subsequent increase in solid waste generation would not impact Scavenger's current available capacity of 500 to 600 tons per day. N\11le the Ox Mountain landfill is currently in excess of its permitted capacity, BFI continues to accept waste as the landfill gradually settles and new space becomes available. As described in Existing Conditions, BFI is permitted until 2018 to expand the Ox Mountain landfill. Thus, the increase in waste generated under the proposed project would be sufficiently served by the 1IRF/TS and the Ox mountain landfill. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regard to solid waste. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. Therefore, and because there are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR, this impact would remain less than significant No additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? Discussion No Impact. Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City- of South San Francisco is regulated by the City's SSFIIC, particularly- Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes quantitative disposal or recycling rates, the Genentech Campus, under the 2007 Master Plan,would not be subject to diversion requirements. However, under the SSFNIC, Genentech would be required to have its solid waste, including constniction and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company. Genentech currently complies with this provision and would continue to do so under the implementation of the proposed project. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the SSF1fC would be met by the Scavenger Company. The proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. There are no substantial changes or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR. Therefore, there would be no impact regarding compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and no further analysis is required. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 63 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Require or result in the construction of new energy production or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact. Development of individual projects under the 2007 Master Plan would be required to comply- with the Title 24 of the California Code of regulations and the new California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN) adopted in 2010, as applicable. Compliance with these regulations would result in new development incorporating energy-sabring design and construction. Further, as identified in the 2007 MEIR, Genentech included environmental sustainability as an important feature in the design of a new 125,000 sf office building that includes several environmentally friendly- features, such as energy-efficient glass, the use of wall partitions, carpet and paying materials with recycled content, and abundant natural liglit. Tliis building has since won an Energy award from the Environmental Protection Agency for superior energy performance. This was the first in a three building complex that will include the above mentioned environmental features. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, and no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 HEIR has become available that would affect the analysis and conclusions in the 2007 MEIR. Project impacts would remain less than ssgnificant and no furtlier anal ysis is required. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? Discussion Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above and in the 2007 MEIR, implementation of the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is urbanized, and while it does provide habitat for nesting birds, mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts. Althotigli the possibility exists for unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains to be uncovered during excavation and grading activities, the proposed project includes mitigation measures that would reduce any-potential impacts associated with cultural resources. As a result, impacts would be less than ssgnificant and no additional mitigation measures bevond those already- identified would be required. There is no new 64 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 iIIIIIiii 111 11 ii In In In information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 HEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified 2007 HEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, and no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 HEIR has become available that would affect the analysis and conclusions in the 2007 HEIR. As a result, no additional analysis is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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)? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. The project would have no impacts either individually or cumulatively to agricultural or mineral resources and land use/planning issues. Impacts and issues specific to site conditions such as geology and soils and noise do not have cumulative effects. Operation of full build- out of the 2007 Master Plan, along with those of cumulative projects in the area could have potentially significant traffic, air quality- and GHG emission impacts on the environment. Althotigh these effects are considered part of overall development and growth, the proposed project's contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts needs evaluation. Impacts are, therefore, considered potentially significant Since new information has become available since certification of the 2007 MEIR, these impacts further evaluated in the SEIR. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (C) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause ® ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could potentially result in environmental effects that may cause adverse effects on human beings with regard to air quality, traffic, and GHG emissions due to changes in circumstances or new information that was not known or could have been known at the time of certification of the 2007 MEIR. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further evaluated in the SEIR. City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the 65 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 REFERENCES Atkins. Biological Resources Relie»,for Genelmech lbster EIR t,�drte Pr feet. Prepared by Karl 0smundson, December 7, 2011. Cultmal Resources Relie» forGelielmech Aster EIR t,�drte. Prepared by Jennifer Sanka, December 13, 2011. Bad-Area_fir Quality-Management District.Adopted Air(41ality (:E/�A Thresholds of,Violizfuxnee,June 2, 2010. littp://Nv<v<v.l)aagmd.gov/—/media/Files/Planning',o2Oando,o2OResearcli/CEQ_A,/ Adopted o,o20Tlireslioldso,o2OTable_December°%2O2010.aslix?la=en (accessed December 8, 2011). Crliforirz�r ElilzrolaulelrtalOualztyAetAzr Oualzty Guidelines, May 2011, pp. 2-6. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. _fictive Landfills Profile for Ox 1lountain Sanitary Landfill (41-AA-0002). littp://«'ww.calrecvcle.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/ LFProfilel.asp?COID=41&F ACID=41 AA-0002 (accessed December 9, 2011) California Natural Resources Agency. 2009 Crliforiaz�r Cline rte Ad trtiora,Strzrte y Diseussioli Dry#.-A Report to the Goreriaor of the,Set&of Crliforiaur zli Re.Vonse to ENeeutire 0r'(lerSV-13-2008, 2009. California Water Service Company-. 2010 I;ibala if' rtes ll ria r,euleratPlxia. South San Francisco District, adopted June 2011 Cavan, D.,P. Bromirski, K. Havhoe, :NI. Tyree, :NI. Dettinger,and R. Flick. N\Iiite Paper: Projecting Future Sea Level. A Report from California Climate Change Center CE(.-300-2003-202-SF, March 2006. Harris 1liller 1liller& Hanson Inc. Tialisit Xozse grad Ilzbratioa InpacAssessnlelit, Eilial Report, 1lav 2006. Moffatt& Nichol. Calidlestick Point/Huliters Poilit Der elopnlelit Pr feet Iraz a1,Vhor eline Assessnlelit_ Prepared for Lennar Urban, February- 2009. San Francisco Bay-Conservation and Development Commission. Lilzri, vith a Risil?,Bury: Vulneiabilzty grad Ad�t�rtioa ili,Vali F-ialitl'Sco Bury alid oa its,Shoreline. Staff Report, September 23, 2011. South San Francisco, City-of. Aster EIR for Gelielmech Cor or rte Facilities Rese rr lr 2~Derelo nlerat Orenry DistlietE%paliszoa alid Abster Mali I,�date. SCH# 2005072165, certified March 2007. State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker. 444 Allerton avenue, South San Francisco, C.A. littp://geotracker.Nvaterl)oards.ca.gov/map/?C1ID=nuireport&mvaddress=-1-1-1+Allerton+_ venue 0-lo2C+South+San+Francisco°-,o2C+CA (accessed December 14, 2011) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. Circular No. It 65-2-211,July- 1, 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise. littp://Nv<v<v.epa.gov/climatecliatige/effects/coastal (accessed December 9, 2011). 66 City of South San Francisco Update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion Update Initial Study Sf-3084649 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Genentech Master EIR Update CNDDB Query for the San Francisco South,Point Bonita,San Francisco North,Oakland West,Hunters Point,San Mateo,and Montara Mountain, California 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangles.(Records List Sorted by Element Scientific Name) CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 1 Acanthomintha duttonii PDLAM01040 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 San Mateo thorn-mint 2 Accipitercooperii ABNKC12040 G5 S3 Cooper's hawk 3 Allium peninsu/are var.franciscanum PMLIL021 R1 G5T2 S2.2 1 B.2 Franciscan onion 4 Ambystoma californiense AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 SC California tiger salamander 5 Amsinckia lunaris PDBOR01070 G2? S2 1 B.2 bent-flowered fiddleneck 6 Antrozous pallidus AMACC10010 G5 S3 SC pallid bat 7 Arctostaphylos franciscana PDERl040J3 G1 S1 1 B.1 Franciscan manzanita 8 Arctostaphylos imbricata PDERI040LO Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 San Bruno Mountain manzanita 9 Arctostaphylos montana ssp.ravenii PDERl040J2 Endangered Endangered G3T1 S1 1 B.1 Presidio manzanita 10 Arctostaphylos montaraensis PDERI042WO G2 S2.2 1B.2 Montara manzanita 11 Arctostaphylos pacifica PDERI040ZO Endangered G1 S1 1 B.2 Pacific manzanita 12 Arctostaphylos regismontana PDERI041 CO G2 S2.2 1 B.2 Kings Mountain manzanita 13 Arenaria paludicola PDCAR040LO Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 marsh sandwort 14 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. PDFABOF7B2 G2T2 S2.2 1 B.2 pycnostachyus coastal marsh milk-vetch 15 Astragalus tener var.tener PDFABOF8R1 G2T2 S2 1 B.2 alkali milk-vetch 16 Athene cunicu/aria ABNSB10010 G4 S2 SC burrowing owl 17 Atriplex joaquiniana PDCHE041 F3 G2 S2 1 B.2 San Joaquin spearscale 18 Banksula incredula ILARA14100 G1 S1 incredible harvestman 19 Caecidotea tomalensis ICMAL01220 G2 S2 Tomales isopod 20 Calicina minor ILARA13020 G1 S1 Edgewood blind harvestman 21 California macrophylla PDGER01070 G2 S2 1 B.1 round-leaved filaree 22 Callophrys mossii bayensis IILEPE2202 Endangered G4T1 S1 San Bruno elfin butterfly Commercial Version--Dated July 02,2011 --Biogeographic Data Branch Pagel Report Printed on Wednesday, December 07,2011 Information Expires 01/02/2012 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Genentech Master EIR Update CNDDB Query for the San Francisco South,Point Bonita,San Francisco North,Oakland West,Hunters Point,San Mateo,and Montara Mountain, California 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangles.(Records List Sorted by Element Scientific Name) CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 23 Carex comosa PMCYP032YO G5 S2? 2.1 bristly sedge 24 Centromadia parryi ssp.parryi PDAST4ROP2 G4T1 S1 1 B.2 pappose tarplant 25 Charadriusaiexandrinusnivosus ABNNB03031 Threatened G4T3 S2 SC western snowy plover 26 Chioropyron maritimum ssp.paiustre PDSCROJOC3 G4?T2 S2.2 1 B.2 Point Reyes bird's-beak 27 Chorizanthe cuspidata var.cuspidata PDPGN04081 G2T2 S2.2 1 B.2 San Francisco Bay spineflower 28 Chorizanthe robusta var.robusta PDPGN040Q2 Endangered G2T1 S1.1 1 B.1 robust spineflower 29 Cicindeia hirtico//is gravida IICOL02101 G5T2 S1 sandy beach tiger beetle 30 Circus cyaneus ABNKC11010 G5 S3 SC northern harrier 31 Cirsium andrewsii PDAST2E050 G2 S2.2 1 B.2 Franciscan thistle 32 Cirsium fontinaie var.fontinaie PDAST2E161 Endangered Endangered G2T1 S1.1 1 B.1 fountain thistle 33 Cirsium occidentaie var.compactum PDAST2E1Z1 G3G4T2 S2.1 1 B.2 compact cobwebby thistle 34 Ciarkia franciscana PDONA050HO Endangered Endangered G1 S1.1 1 B.1 Presidio clarkia 35 Coiiinsia corymbosa PDSCROH060 G1 S1.2 1 B.2 round-headed Chinese-houses 36 Coiiinsia multicolor PDSCROHOBO G2 S2.2 1 B.2 San Francisco collinsia 37 Corynorhinus townsendii AMACC08010 G4 S2S3 SC Townsend's big-eared bat 38 Danaus piexippus IILEPP2010 G5 S3 monarch butterfly 39 Dipodomys venustus venustus AMAFD03042 G4T1 S1 Santa Cruz kangaroo rat 40 Dirca occidentaiis PDTHY03010 G2G3 S2S3 1 B.2 western Ieatherwood 41 Dufourea stagei IIHYM22010 G1? Si? Stage's dufourine bee 42 E/anusieucurus ABNKC06010 G5 S3 white-tailed kite 43 Emys marmorata ARAAD02030 G3G4 S3 SC western pond turtle 44 Enhydra iutris nereis AMAJF09012 Threatened G4T2 S2 southern sea otter 45 Eriophy//um/ati/obum PDAST31\1060 Endangered Endangered G1 S1.1 1 B.1 San Mateo woolly sunflower Commercial Version--Dated July 02,2011 --Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 Report Printed on Wednesday, December 07,2011 Information Expires 01/02/2012 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Genentech Master EIR Update CNDDB Query for the San Francisco South,Point Bonita,San Francisco North,Oakland West,Hunters Point,San Mateo,and Montara Mountain, California 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangles.(Records List Sorted by Element Scientific Name) CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 46 Eucyciogobius newberryi AFCQN04010 Endangered G3 S2S3 SC tidewater goby 47 Euphydryas editha bayensis IILEPK4055 Threatened G5T1 S1 Bay checkerspot butterfly 48 Falco coiumbarius ABNKD06030 G5 S3 merlin 49 Falco peregrinus anatum ABNKD06071 Delisted unknown code... G4T3 S2 American peregrine falcon 50 Friti//aria bif/ora var.ineziana PMLILOV031 G1 QT1 Q S1.1 1 B.1 Hillsborough chocolate lily 51 Friti//aria/i/iacea PMLILOVOCO G2 S2.2 1 B.2 fragrant fritillary 52 Geothiypistrichassinuosa ABPBX1201A G5T2 S2 SC saltmarsh common yellowthroat 53 Giiia capitata ssp.chamissonis PDPLM040B3 G5T2 S2.1 1 B.1 blue coast gilia 54 Giiia miiiefoiiata PDPLM04130 G2 S2.2 1 B.2 dark-eyed gilia 55 Grindeiia hirsutuia var.maritima PDAST470D3 G5T2 S2.1 1 B.2 San Francisco gumplant 56 Heiiantheiia castanea PDAST4M020 G2 S2 1 B.2 Diablo helianthella 57 Hemizonia congesta ssp.congesta PDAST4R065 G5T2T3 S2S3 1 B.2 seaside tarplant 58 Hesperevax sparsifiora var.brevifoiia PDASTE5011 G4T2T3 S2S3 1 B.2 short-leaved evax 59 Hesperoiinon congestum PDLIN01060 Threatened Threatened G2 S2.1 1 B.1 Marin western flax 60 Hoiocarpha macradenia PDAST4X020 Threatened Endangered G1 S1.1 1 B.1 Santa Cruz tarplant 61 Horkeiia cuneata ssp.sericea PDROSOW043 G4T1 S1.1 1 B.1 Kellogg's horkelia 62 Horkeiia marinensis PDROSOWOBO G2 S2.2 1 B.2 Point Reyes horkelia 63 Hydrochara rickseckeri IIC0L5V010 G1 G2 S1 S2 Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle 64 Hydroporusieechi IICOL55040 G1? Si? Leech's skyline diving beetle 65 ischnura gemina II0DO72010 G2 S2 San Francisco forktail damselfly 66 Lasiurus biosseviiiii AMACC05060 G5 S3? SC western red bat 67 Lasiurus cinereus AMACC05030 G5 S4? hoary bat 68 Lateral/us jamaicensis coturnicu/us ABNME03041 Threatened G4T1 S1 California black rail Commercial Version--Dated July 02,2011 --Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 Report Printed on Wednesday, December 07,2011 Information Expires 01/02/2012 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Genentech Master EIR Update CNDDB Query for the San Francisco South,Point Bonita,San Francisco North,Oakland West,Hunters Point,San Mateo,and Montara Mountain, California 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangles.(Records List Sorted by Element Scientific Name) CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 69 Layia carnosa PDAST51\1010 Endangered Endangered G2 S2.1 1 B.1 beach layia 70 Leptosiphon croceus PDPLM09170 G1 S1.1 1 B.1 coast yellow leptosiphon 71 Leptosiphon rosaceus PDPLM09180 G1 S1.1 1 B.1 rose leptosiphon 72 Lessingia arachnoidea PDAST5SOCO G1 S1.2 1 B.2 Crystal Springs lessingia 73 Lessingia germanorum PDAST5SO10 Endangered Endangered G1 S1.1 1 B.1 San Francisco lessingia 74 Lichnanthe ursina IICOL67020 G2 S2 bumblebee scarab beetle 75 Malacothamnus aboriginum PDMALOQ020 G2 S2 1 B.2 Indian Valley bush-mallow 76 Malacothamnus arcuatus PDMALOQOEO G2Q S2.2 1 B.2 arcuate bush-mallow 77 Malacothamnus davidsonii PDMALOQ040 G1 S1.1 1 B.2 Davidson's bush-mallow 78 Malacothamnus hallii PDMALOQOFO G2Q S2 1 B.2 Hall's bush-mallow 79 Melospiza melodia pusillula ABPBXA301 S G5T2? S2? SC Alameda song sparrow 80 Melospiza melodia samuelis ABPBXA301 W G5T2? S2? SC San Pablo song sparrow 81 Microseris paludosa PDAST6EODO G2 S2.2 1 B.2 marsh microseris 82 Monolopia graci/ens PDAST6GO10 G2G3 S2S3 1 B.2 woodland woollythreads 83 Mylopharodon conocephalus AFCJB25010 G3 S3 SC hardhead 84 Myotis thysanodes AMACCO1090 G4G5 S4 fringed myotis 85 Neotoma fuscipes annectens AMAFF08082 G5T2T3 S2S3 SC San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat 86 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh CTT5211 OCA G3 S3.2 87 Northern Maritime Chaparral CTT37C10CA G1 S1.2 88 Nyctinomops macrotis AMACD04020 G5 S2 SC big free-tailed bat 89 Oncorhynchus kisutch AFCHA02034 Endangered Endangered G4 S2? coho salmon-central California coast ESU 90 Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus AFCHA0209G Threatened G5T2Q S2 steelhead-central California coast DPS 91 Pentachaeta bellidiflora PDAST6XO30 Endangered Endangered G1 S1.1 1 B.1 white-rayed pentachaeta Commercial Version--Dated July 02,2011 --Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 Report Printed on Wednesday, December 07,2011 Information Expires 01/02/2012 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Genentech Master EIR Update CNDDB Query for the San Francisco South,Point Bonita,San Francisco North,Oakland West,Hunters Point,San Mateo,and Montara Mountain, California 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangles.(Records List Sorted by Element Scientific Name) CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 92 Phaiacrocoraxauritus ABNFD01020 G5 S3 double-crested cormorant 93 Piagiobothrys chorisianus var.chorisianus PDBOROV061 G3T2Q S2.2 1 B.2 Choris'popcorn-flower 94 Piagiobothrys diffusus PDBOROV080 Endangered G1 Q S1.1 1 B.1 San Francisco popcorn-flower 95 Piagiobothrysgiaber PDBOROVOBO GH SH 1A hairless popcorn-flower 96 Piebejusicarioidesmissionensis IILEPG801A Endangered G5T1 S1 Mission blue butterfly 97 Poiemonium carneum PDPLMOE050 G4 S1 2.2 Oregon polemonium 98 Potentiiia hickmanii PDROS1 B000 Endangered Endangered G1 S1.1 1 B.1 Hickman's cinquefoil 99 Ra//us/ongirostris obso%tus ABNME05016 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 California clapper rail 100 Rana draytonii AAABH01022 Threatened G4T2T3 S2S3 SC California red-legged frog 101 Reithrodontomys raviventris AMAFF02040 Endangered Endangered G1 G2 S1 S2 salt-marsh harvest mouse 102 Riparia riparia ABPAU08010 Threatened G5 S2S3 bank swallow 103 Sanicuia maritima PDAP11 Z0D0 Rare G2 S2.2 1 B.1 adobe sanicle 104 Scapanus/atimanus insuiaris AMABB02032 G5T1 S1 Angel Island mole 105 Scapanus/atimanus parvus AMABB02031 G5T1 Q S1 SC Alameda Island mole 106 Serpentine Bunchgrass CTT42130CA G2 S2.2 107 Siiene verecunda ssp. verecunda PDCAROU213 G5T2 S2.2 1 B.2 San Francisco campion 108 Speyeria caiiippe caiiippe IILEPJ6091 Endangered G5T1 S1 callippe silverspot butterfly 109 Speyeria zerene myrtieae IILEPJ6089 Endangered G5T1 S1 Myrtle's silverspot 110 Stebbinsoseris decipiens PDAST6E050 G2 S2.2 1 B.2 Santa Cruz microseris 111 Sternuia anti//arum brown ABNNM08103 Endangered Endangered G4T2T3Q S2S3 California least tern 112 Suaeda caiifornica PDCHEOP020 Endangered G1 S1.1 1 B.1 California seablite 113 Taxidea taxus AMAJF04010 G5 S4 SC American badger 114 Thamnophis sirtaiis tetrataenia ARADB3613B Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2 San Francisco garter snake Commercial Version--Dated July 02,2011 --Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 Report Printed on Wednesday, December 07,2011 Information Expires 01/02/2012 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Genentech Master EIR Update CNDDB Query for the San Francisco South,Point Bonita,San Francisco North,Oakland West,Hunters Point,San Mateo,and Montara Mountain, California 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangles.(Records List Sorted by Element Scientific Name) CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 115 Trachusa gummifera IIHYM80010 G1 S1 A leaf-cutter bee 116 Trifolium hydrophilum PDFAB400R5 G2? S2.2? 1 B.2 saline clover 117 Triphysaria floribunda PDSCR2T010 G2 S2.2 1 B.2 San Francisco owl's-clover 118 Triquetrella californica NBMUS7S010 G1 S1 1 B.2 coastal triquetrella 119 Tryonia imitator IMGASJ7040 G2G3 S2S3 mimic tryonia(=California brackishwater snail) 120 Valley Needlegrass Grassland CTT42110CA G3 S3.1 121 Vespericola marinensis IMGASA4140 G2G3 S2S3 Marin hesperian 122 Zapus trinotatus orarius AMAFH01031 G5T1 T3Q S1 S3 SC Point Reyes jumping mouse Commercial Version--Dated July 02,2011 --Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 Report Printed on Wednesday, December 07,2011 Information Expires 01/02/2012 ® • • • i • � • � • • • Atkins North America,Inc. I ac" AT K10F, 2U° 475 Sansome Street, Suite 200 t San Francisco, California 94111-3164 Telephone:+1.415.362.1500 Fax: +1.415.362.1954 www.atkinsgiobal.com/northamerica December 15, 2011 Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Records Search Results, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Database Search Results and Sensitivity Designations for the Genentech Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Update (Supplemental EIR). Mr. Beaudin: Atkins has completed a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search for the update to the Master Plan EIR for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan, which considered the environmental impacts of development on Genentech's 200-acre campus. The project area is located within Sections 22 and 23 of Township 3 South, Range 5 West as found on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) South San Francisco 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The record search was conducted on December 9, 2011 by Atkins Archaeologist Lora Holland at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. The search included a review of previously documented resources and surveys for the project area and all lands within a 0.50-mile radius. The search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory (OH-HPD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CHPI), and historic maps. The results of the records search indicated that no cultural resources have been recorded within the project area, and that three resources are known within the 0.50-mile search radius. Two of the previously recorded resources consist of prehistoric sites and one is a historic age building constructed in 1898. The physical address provided in the OH-HPD is 450 East Grand Avenue, which is located immediately beyond the southern portion of the project area. These resources and their location relative to the project area are outlined in Table 1 below. Six area-specific cultural resource reports are on-file with the NWIC for the 0.50-mile search radius. One of these studies is located within the project area boundaries, and consists of a record search study conducted for the construction of a cellular 10-foot by 30-foot tower facility located in the southern portion of the project area at the summit of San Bruno Point. This study concluded the project would have no effect to historic properties or archaeological sites; however, the assessment did not include an intensive pedestrian survey (S-037275). One historic age, built-environment resources survey was indicated in the OH-HPD but the boundaries of this study were not depicted on previous technical studies maps available at the NWIC. The survey likely took place within or just adjacent to the project area, as one resource was recorded immediately adjacent to the project area (005514/P-41-000884). Mr. Gerry Beaudin ATIKIIINISi December 15, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Table 1: Known Cultural Resources within the 0.50-Mile Records Search Radius Site Number/ OH-HPD Within—0.5- Within Within Property mile to 0.25- —0.25-mile Project Number Resource Description mile Radius Radius Area? CA-SMA-0038/ Prehistoric-Shellmound previously designated as site ---- . No P-41-000042 Nelson 337. The approximate site location is about 1,000-feet from the project area boundaries. CA-SMA-0039/ Prehistoric-Shellmound previously designated as site ---- . No P-41-000043 Nelson 378. The approximate site location is immediately adjacent to the project area boundaries. 005514/ Historic age-The W.P. Fuller& Company Paint Plant --- . No P-41-000884 built in 1898. This building is located at 450 East Grand Avenue, and has been assigned a National Register Status(NRS)of 7N, indicating that it needs to be reevaluated for inclusion in the NRHP and/or the CRHR. During the records search, archival maps were reviewed for the presence of historic age structures and development within the project area and the general vicinity. The results of this review are presented below in Table 2, and assist in determining the probability for encountering historic age resources during project implementation. Archival maps can also provide insight about historic-era land use patterns. Table 2: Archival Topographic Map Review Map Name and Date Review 1899 USGS San Mateo, Calif. This map depicts a reservoir in the southern portion of the project area. A 1:62,500 scale map road similar to the present day alignment of East Grand Avenue runs along the southern project boundary. 1915 USGS San Mateo, Calif. This map depicts four structures within the project area boundaries. The 1:62,500 scale map road observed along the southern project boundary on the 1899 map is also present on the 1915 map. 1939 USGS San Mateo, Calif. This map depicts dirt roads and one loose surface graded dry weather road 1:62,500 scale map similar to the present day road alignment within the project area. The four structures shown on the 1915 map are no longer present on the 1939 map. One structure is located in the western portion of the project area, and this structure is not depicted on the previous maps. Native American Heritage Commission Record Search Atkins requested a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) sacred lands database on December 13, 2011 to determine if any Native American cultural resources are present within or near the vicinity of the proposed project site. The results of the NAHC database search are currently pending. Upon receipt of the NAHC response letter, information- scoping letters will be sent to all named Native American contacts that might have knowledge about the project area. These information-scoping letters will be sent to request information about the presence or absence of any properties of religious and cultural significance not listed in the NAHC database. The purpose of the letters will be for information scoping purposes only, and will not constitute formal consultation. Mr. Gerry Beaudin ATIKIIINISi December 15, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Summary of Records Search Results The results of the CHRIS records search indicated that no known and previously recorded cultural resources are located in the project area; however, the project area has not been previously surveyed for the presence or absence of observable cultural resources. Review of historic-period maps and literature for San Mateo County on-file at the NWIC indicates the potential presence of historic-period archaeological resources within the project area. The 1915 USGS San Mateo Quadrangle indicated that four structures were present within the project area in 1915, and the 1939 USGS San Mateo Quadrangle shows an additional structure within the project area. This area, known as the East of 101 Area, has historically been occupied by warehouses and meat packing industries. Previously recorded prehistoric shell mound sites (CA-SMA-0038 and CA-SMA-0039) are located adjacent to the project area, and their presence indicates an increased probability that prehistoric archaeological resources may be located within the project area. The project site also lies within an area once occupied by the Costanoan, or Ohlone, group of Native Americans. Native American archaeological sites in this area of San Mateo County tend to be situated near the historic margin of bay tidal marshland and along creeks that drain upland terrain bordering the Bayshore plain, which is similar to the environment found within and just adjacent to the project area. Thus, based on an evaluation of the environmental setting, a review of features associated with known sites, and a historic map review, there is a moderate to high possibility that unrecorded cultural resources exist in the project area. Historical and Archaeological Resources No historical resources are known within the project area. However, previously unidentified historic-period and prehistoric archaeological resources may be located within the project area. Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources It is always possible that ground-disturbing activities may uncover presently obscured or buried and previously unknown cultural resources. In the event that construction activities occur within previously undisturbed soils and buried cultural resources are discovered, such resources could be damaged or destroyed, potentially resulting in significant impacts to cultural resources. If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during construction, if evidence of an archaeological site or if other suspected historic resources are encountered, it is recommended that all ground-disturbing activity cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archeological personnel shall assist the Lead Agency by generating measures to protect the discovered resources. Potentially significant cultural resources could consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood or shell artifacts or features, including structural remains, historic dumpsites, hearths and middens. Midden features are characterized by darkened soil, and could conceal material remains, including worked stone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials and special attention should always be paid to uncharacteristic soil color changes. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. Mr. Gerry Beaudin ATIKIIINISi December 15, 2011 Page 4 of 5 No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Human Remains There are no known formal cemeteries present within the project area, and the results of the CHRIS records search did not indicate if human remains were present at any of the previously recorded cultural resource sites. There is the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown and buried human remains. Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are discovered during any phase of construction, including disarticulated or cremated remains, all ground-disturbing activities should cease within 100 feet of the remains. California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. It is further recommended that a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist may provide technical assistance to the MLD, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human remains. Please feel free to contact us at 1.415.362.1500 if you have any questions, or if Atkins can provide additional assistance regarding cultural resource management issues. Sincerely, J r F Lora Holland, M.A., RPA Archaeologist/Scientist I Attachment A: NAHC Sacred Lands Database Search and Correspondence Attachment A NAHC Sacred Lands Database Search and Correspondence Records Search Request for Genentech Master Environmental Impact Report Update (Su... Page 1 of Records Search Request for Genentech Master Environmental Impact Report Update (Supplemental EIR) Holland, Lora Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 20119:42 AM To: nahc @pacbell.net Attachments: EIR_StudyArea_Aeria1[1].pdf(995 KB) ; EIR_StudyArea[1].pdf(2 MB) Dear NAHC, Atkins is preparing an update to the Master EIR for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update, which considered the environmental impacts of development on Genentech's 200-acre campus area (Genentech's Facilities Ten-Year Master Plan or Master Plan (2007)). The MEIR was certified by the City of South San Francisco on March 28, 2007. We are requesting a search of the sacred lands database to determine if any Native American cultural resources are present on or in the vicinity of the proposed project site. We are also conducting cultural resources records search at the Northwest Information Center. I have attached a map of the study area. The project area is located at: County: San Mateo Quad: South San Francisco Township 3S Range 5W Sections 22 & 23 Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (415) 362-1500 or email at lora.holland@atkinsglobal.com. Please do not respond to this email but instead Please FAX the results of the database search and any other input on the project to Lora Holland at (415) 362- 1954. Lora Holland, RPA Archaeologist/Scientist I Atkins 475 Sansome St. Suite 2000 San Francisco CA 94111 1 Tel: +1 (415) 362 1500 1 Fax: +1 (415) 362 1954 Email: lora.holland @atkinsglobal.corn I Web: www.atkinsgiobal.com/northamerica www.atkinsgiobal.com Consider the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to. https:Hmail.pbsj.com/OWA/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABkRZ4Z5MUuTLJjcs... 12/14/2011 STATE OF CALIECIRNIA Edmund G.Brown Jr..Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 (916)653-4082 (916)657-5390-Fax January 4,2012 Gerry Beaudin South San Francisco City 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco,CA 94080 RE: SCH#1988071204 Use Permit for Genentech Master Plan;San Mateo County. Dear Mr. Beaudin: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) referenced above.The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)states that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource,which includes archeological resources,is a signifi cant effect requiring the preparation of an EIR (CE QA Guidelines 15064(b)). To comply with this provision the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on historical resources within the area of project effect(APE),and if so to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess and mitigate project-related impacts to archaeological resources,the NAHC recommends the following actions: ✓ Contact the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center for a record search. The record search will determine: ■ If a part or all of the area of project effect(APE)has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. ■ If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. ■ If the probability is low, moderate,or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. ■ If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. ✓ If an archaeological inventory survey is required,the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. ■ The final report containing site forms,site significance,and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains,and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum,and not be made available for public disclosure. ■ The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. ✓ Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for: ■ A Sacred Lands File Check. USGS 7.5 minute guadrangle name,township, range and section req&ed. ■ A list of appropriate Native American contacts for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in the mitigation measures. Native American Contacts List attached. ✓ Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. ■ Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources,per California Environmental Quality Act(CE QA)§150 .5(f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity,a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American,with knowledge in cultural resources,should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. ■ Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code§7050.5,CEQA§1 5064.5(e), and Public Resources Code§5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Sincerely, Katy Sanhez Program Analyst (916)653-4040 cc:State Clearinghouse samTrans BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2012 ���IVUI�VIVU�VVUIRRE ILLII I JERRY CHAIR CAR®LE GR GR®®k9,VICE CHAIR ISE= JEFF GEE ROSE GUILSAULT SHIRLEY HARRIS ZOE KERSTEEN-TUCKER ARTHUR L. LLOYD KARYL MATSUMOTO ADRIENNETissIER MICHAEL J.SCANLON GENERAL MANAGER/CEO January 19, 2012 � I Mr. Gerry Beaudin " T Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Comments-RE: NOP Draft Master Report Genentech Master Dear r. Beau din: SamTrans is leased to it its comments on the NOP for the r aster Environmental Impact Report Update forte Genentech Master Plan. These comments pertain to potential impacts to transportation and traffic identified in the December 2011 initial study that accompanied the NOR • The impact analysis in the Supplemental EIR should take into account the effects of increased congestion resulting from the proposed project on the public transit system. While the project area is not directly served by public transit, S amTrans Des operate a BART commuter shuttle between the South San Francisco BART Station e Oyster Point area that passes through the project area. We suggest that you monitor the potential effects of the proposed project on the li transit system, including e BART commuter shuttle. • The December 2011 initial study indicates t the Genentech Master Plan includes a Transportation Demand Management( )program that reduces y project related impacts to alternative transportation s to a less-than- significant level and no further environmental analysis is required. it we support your efforts to include a TDM program as of e Genentech Master Plan, it should be noted that the impact analysis in the 2007 Master EIR appears to have only addressed impacts to bicycle and pedestrian es and does not analyze ' acts to lic transit. The impact analysis should e updated to address potential conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit. DISTRICT SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT 1250 San Carlos Ave.—P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 (650)508-6200 Mr. Gerry Beaudin January 19, 2012 Page 2 of 2 The TDM strategies discussed in the previous Master EIR include plans for implementing shuttle service between the Genentech Campus and local BART and Caltrain stations. If additional new shuttle service is planned to existing transit stations, the Supplemental EIR should take into account current subscription shuttle service and assess whether expansion of shuttle service will have indirect impacts on existing transit station areas (e.g., use of curb space drop off and loading areas). Thank you fort opportunity to provide comments on the above referenced project. Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at 650-622-7842 or lafebreh@samtrans.com. Sincerely, Hild!2 a a�e re,DBIA Manager, Capital Projects and Environmental Planning ec: Marisa Espinosa(SamTrans) Chris Jones, AICP (SamTrans) Page | of | From: Capata, Julian F Sent Wednesday, January 04, 20129:51AM To: 8eaudin, Gerry; Avila, Kimberly [c: Maitas, Steven; SharZamanpour; Margie To; Gresham, Zane 0.; AjeUo, Linda Subject: RE: Thank you Gerry. The change will be noted in the Supplemental MBR> Julian Julian F. Copoto Associate Project Manager, Environmental VVee ATK|NS 1zan1 Wilshire swu`Suite 4an. umAnn*lee.CA,ennzo|Tel:+1 (310)z6amaz,43a1za6�� Note new direct |ine� +1 (310) 893 2328 � 1 (310)2688175 Email: |Wou: From: Beaudin, Gerry [maiho:Gerry.Bea udin@ssfnet Sent: VVednesday, January 04, 20129:49AM To: Capata, Julian F; Avila, Kimberly Cm: Mattas, Steven; SharZamanpour; Margie To; Gresham, Zane O.; Ajelk\ Linda Subject: Hi Julian & Kim: Hope your is getting into the swing of2U12| | received a call from Sandi Potter today regarding the Genentech 8MBR. Sandi is an Engineering Geologist with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). She mentioned that she will not be able tosubmit a formal/written comment or attend the eooping meeting, but wanted to make the following statement/comment: The Municipal Regional Stormmater Permit(Adopted in2009, Amended in20YY)is different than the Countywide Permit(which was/n place when the 2007&YE/f7 was adoptau0 New C3 requirements will apply. Sandi wants to make sure that we incorporate updated language/n the E/f7to address these changes. We're all aware of the change, but I'm relaying this to make a written record of the call and to bring it to your direct attention. |f you have further questions for Sandi, she can be reached by email at Thanks and have a great day! Gerry Girard 8oauuixAICP| LEEDAP Principal Pl o, City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco,cA 94080 E ' ~~~'~~~~ F 650.829.6e39 This message has been checked for all kno,vn viruses hrMennugeLohn. fl1e://P:{P jecto - A11 [|oero\|OOO2OOOOf\|OOO25868 SSF Genentech SNffilA\lSN{)p\Corn... 1/26/2012 Sent By: CALTRANS ARAN V RT T'.IO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Feb-1 M12 6.2 PM; Rage 1l''� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSVORTATION I t t GRAND ', �BOX 23660 OAKLAND,CA 94623-06160 HONE (5 10),286-5541 f 7ex you,rM sWf FAX (5111)286. 5 Be enerV effident! Try 711. February 1,2012 S 112' Mr.Geny X1 ,8 City of sett San,Francisco Manning Division 4,001 Gmnd,Avenue South Sim Francisco,CA 980 Dem . din: Updateft the Master the dencterh Aesearch, =d Development Overlay,District.Expanxim and Matte Plan Update-Notice of fteparatiou TI=k you forcontinuingto include i , t of Transportation p t In the . envffoninental,review pro; for the,abo t. following oonn-wntsare leased on the Notice Pmparation(NO . tom and Ii4ftHeI*jiuwf,SiWdy(77S)- IP0"CdrS*W,High ma The NOP discussmd3m Aihe:full b d.,but,Wouldgenerate whick trite � m what is'experience byih,6. miununity curr t ,. 'coo ldl ptegtitliy.00n ict with applicable 1 ,ordinance s poli , l ted t LOS.This issue will, analymhn the S , ?' l � � vide a tc!mpletc analysis ofthe build- taut 6onditi n anal'011mui.46vt impacts fbtaWstudy hitersectim seenmios including ludin Synchro sis.. Please forward,at least onehvd,copy And'one CDofthe,Master flan'Update.the Supplemental Envitomcutal hnpact R S ,including,ttchnical appemlims as soon as tb 'are available.,. Please ftxd:fuse to c 11 or vmil Pi t ff t(.510)62.2-1644 or u! jkaSmmq,n@dot—Mv,witb,any questions,reprAing this letter. Sincerely, "ittit ' l it . coca CD v lopmont—lak3*ovtmmental,Review W.Scutt MCI , St te'Cl+ ai n � wrsr�atav l�rrrr `�' �addlrjr.rrarr "rr� raras�cr� I I I ill 1111111milijilloli;1 1 i 11 i i I I i I i i i M 1 i ills 11 ill! ® i 00 0 ' For ease of reference by the reader, the following tables are a compilation of all mitigation measures (NBA and project requirements (PR) required of the proposed project, both from the htitial Study and HEIR analvses, respectively. 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures Aesthetics PR 4.9-1 Future development within the West Campus shall be constructed so as not to obstruct existing views of San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill and the associated "Wind Chimes" sculpture, from areas west of the Genentech Campus, including US-101. Open space areas and new roadways shall be designed to provide views of these resources. PR 4.9-2 Developments within the proposed MEIR Study Area visible from US-101 be designed with a high visual quality. Future developments within the proposed MEIR Study Area shall be designed to enhance the visual image of the area as seen from US-101 and shall be designed with the views from US-101 in mind in order to create an aesthetically pleasing and inviting environment from US-101. MM 4.9-1 Design for the proposed structures on the Campus neighborhoods shall include the use of textured or other non-reflective exterior surfaces and non-reflective glass types, including double glazed and non-reflective vision glass. All exterior glass must meet the specifications of all applicable codes. MM 4.9-2(a) Maintain appropriate levels of light at building entries,walkways,courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night consistent with minimum levels detailed in Genentech's security plan and building codes. MM 4.9-2(b)Enhance campus character with consistent use of light fixtures,finishes and colors. MM 4.9-2(c) Fixture types and heights shall conform to the following styles as feasible: • Parking lots and roads—provide round fixtures on 22-foot poles on raised concrete footings not to exceed a 25-foot total finished height,appropriately finished black,or approved equal. • Sidewalks,pathways,and plazas—provide round hardtop on post top fixtures not to exceed a 15-foot total finished height, appropriately finished black,or approved equal. Accent pedestrian lighting—provide bollard style fixtures, not to exceed a 42-inch total height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. Agriculture/Forestry Resources N/A Air Quality MM 4.3-1(a) Implement appropriate dust control measures recommended by the BAAQMD as outlined below. The project contractor(s) shall comply with these dust control strategies. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective: • Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose construction and demolition debris from the site,or require all such trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces in active construction areas at least twice daily. • Pave,apply water three times daily,or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas. • Sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved parking areas and staging areas. • Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. • Enclose,cover,water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt,sand,etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. City of South San Francisco Sf-3084649 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR B-1 2007 • • •n Measure Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. ■ Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ■ Install wheel washers for all existing trucks,or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. ■ Install wind breaks at the windward side(s)of construction areas. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds(instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period or more. • To the extent possible,limit the area subject to excavation,grading,and other dust-generating construction activity at any one time. MM 4.3-1(b) Designate a dust control coordinator.All construction sites shall post in a conspicuous location the name and phone number of a designated construction dust control coordinator who can respond to complaints by suspending dust-producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. Biological Resources MM 4.1-1 On land adjacent to the coastal salt marsh, pile-driving associated with construction activities shall avoid the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period(Hunter 1999)to the extent possible. If no pile-driving is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to pile-driving.The area surveyed shall include all areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the area where pile-driving is to occur or as otherwise determined by the biologist.Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey date. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, pile-driving shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest),the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. MM 4.1-2 Prior to the start of construction,the project applicant shall retain a certified arborist to conduct preconstruction surveys of trees within the MEIR Study Area, and provide a map to the applicant and the City. Each protected tree identified that will be directly impacted by removal or pruning shall require a Tree Pruning/Removal Permit per Title 13,Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC).This permit shall be submitted to the City and must be approved before building permits are issued. Replacement trees shall be determined as set forth in SSFMC Section 13.30.080: (a) Any protected trees that are removed shall be replaced as follows: (1) Replacement shall be three 24-inch box size or two 36-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree removed as determined below.However,the director maintains the right to dictate size and species of trees in new developments. (2) Any protected tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two thirty-six-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree so removed as determined below. (3) Replacement of a protected tree can be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exist on the property to meet all other requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. (4) If replacement trees,as designated in subsection(b)(1)or(2)of this section,as applicable,cannot be planted on the property, payment of twice the replacement value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture Standards shall be made to the City.Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree purchase and planting.(Ord. 1271 §1 (part),2000:Ord. 1060§1 (part), 1989) Cultural Resources MM 4.10-1(a) If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during construction,a qualified archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall conduct further archival and field study to identify the presence of archaeological resources in the area surrounding the discovery. Field study may include, but is not limited to,pedestrian survey,auguring,and monitoring construction activities as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources in a fully developed urban area. MM 4.10-1(b) If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during construction,a qualified archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall first determine whether this resource is a "unique archaeological resource" under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a"unique archaeological resource,"the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code 21083.2.Work in the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work will resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. Sf-3084649 City of South San Francisco B-2 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 2007 • • •n Measures MM 4.10-2 In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading within 100 feet of the find shall halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected, and the project applicant immediately shall notify the San Mateo County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of PRC Section 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment,and re-burial,if necessary.Work may resume once the area is protected or the body is removed. Geology/Soils PR 4.5-1(a) Development within the preliminary boundary of the Coyote Point hazard area, as depicted on Figure 15of the East of 101 Area Plan and referred to as Figure 4.5-6 in this MEIR, shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Fault trenching may be required on individual development sites where feasible and determined necessary by the engineer. No structure for human occupancy shall occur within 50 feet of identified active faults, unless a geotechnical investigation and report determine that no active branches of that fault underlie the surface. PR 4.5-1(b) New slopes greater than 5 feet in height,either cut in native soils or rock,or created by placing fill material,shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if extending a level area at the toe of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration shall be checked for an adequate factor of safety by a geotechnical engineer,based on applicable codes and professional standards. PR 4.5-1(c)The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a vegetative cover on the slope or by other means.Runoff from paved or other parts of the slope shall be directed away from the slope. PR 4.5-1(d)Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and grading should be kept to a minimum. PR 4.5-2(a)The City shall assess the need for geotechnical investigations on a project-by project basis on sites in areas of fill as depicted on the East of 101 Area Plan, Figure 17and referred to as Figure 4.5-7 in this MEIR,and shall require such investigations where needed. PR 4.5-2(b)Where fill remains under a proposed structure,project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. Greenhouse Gas Emissions N/A Hazards/Hazardous Materials (NO DEIR SECTION) MM 4.6-1 While not expected to occur on-site, if contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered during the removal of on-site debris or during excavation and/or grading activities, the construction contractor(s) shall stop work and immediately inform the appropriate Genentech representative.An on-site assessment shall be conducted to determine if the discovered materials pose a significant risk to the public or construction workers. If the materials are determined to pose such a risk,a remediation plan shall be prepared and submitted to comply with applicable legal requirements to assure the proper handling and management of contaminated soil and/or debris, and the protection of human health and the environment for the new building. Soil remediation methods could include, but are not necessarily limited to, excavation and on-site treatment, excavation and off-site treatment or disposal, and/or treatment without excavation. Remediation alternatives for cleanup of contaminated groundwater could include, but are not necessarily limited to, on-site treatment, extraction and off-site treatment, and/or disposal. The construction schedule shall be modified or delayed to ensure that construction will not inhibit remediation activities and will not expose the public or construction workers to significant risks associated with hazardous conditions. MM 4.6-2(a) To the extent feasible, the project applicant shall maintain at least one unobstructed lane in both directions on the site's roadways.At any time only a single lane is available,Genentech shall provide a temporary traffic signal,signal carriers(i.e.,flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both directions. If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment,Genentech shall provide appropriate signage indicating alternative routes. MM 4.6-2(b) To ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures, the project applicant shall consult with the South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments to disclose temporary lane or roadway closures and alternative travel routes. City of South San Francisco Sf-3084649 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR B-3 2007 • • •n Measures Hydrology[Water Quality MM 4.13-2(a) The project applicant shall develop an operational SWPPP prior to construction to protect water quality after construction. The project SWPPP shall include,but not be limited to,the following measures for project operation: ■ Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed project site shall be described.This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. ■ Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs,with treatment controls uses as needed. ■ Development of a monitoring and implementation plan.Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control,clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures,vegetation/landscape maintenance,replacement of media filters,regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas,etc.Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous;therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site.Parking lot areas shall be cleared on a daily basis of debris that may enter the storm drain system. ■ The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco.Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually in coordination with the STOPPP.The SWPPP shall be adjusted,as necessary,to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. ■ The project applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development.This information shall be distributed to all employees at the project site.At a minimum, the information shall cover:(1)proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals;(2)proper use of landscaping chemicals; (3)clean- up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals;and(4)prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. MM 4.13-2(b)The project applicant shall install a storm drain interceptor(also known as an oil/water or oil/grit separator)on-site to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormwater.Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to the impervious surface drainage area is important and should be taken into consideration when choosing the interceptor unit model and size. MM 4.13-2(c) The project applicant shall incorporate alternative drainage solutions around surface parking lots and near large areas of impervious surfaces such as public plazas. Such solutions may include, but are not limited to, vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes,and ponds. MM 4.13-2(d)The project applicant shall incorporate rooftop or downspout retention into all building plans. PR 4.13-1(a) Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the project applicant shall develop a SWPPP prior to construction to protect water quality during and after construction.The project SWPPP shall include,but not be limited to,the following measures for the construction period: ■ Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching,erosion control blankets,erosion control matting,and hydro- seeding,shall be utilized,in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG)Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. ■ BMPs for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment(i.e.,paint,concrete,etc.)to downstream waters ■ After construction is completed,all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment,and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment PR 4.13-1(b)The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application.The Erosion Control Plan shall include controls for winterization,dust,erosion,and pollution in accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging,portable restrooms,mobilization areas,and planned access routes. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans,and note any violations,which shall be corrected immediately. Land Use/Planning N/A Sf-3084649 City of South San Francisco B-4 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 2007 • • •n Measures Mineral Resources N/A Noise PR 4.4-1 All construction activity within the City shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays,and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. MM 4.4-1(a) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following construction best management practices (BMPs)be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: • Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction,notification must be provided to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period • Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards • Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses,where feasible • Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM to minimize disruption on sensitive uses • Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible,which may include,but are not limited to,noise barriers or noise blankets MM 4.4-1(b) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas along with the operation of earthmoving equipment within the MEIR Study Area would be located as far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents,which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM 4.4-1(c) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks used during construction would be routed away from noise-and vibration-sensitive uses, to the extent possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents,which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM 4.4-2(a) Prior to the commencement of ground clearing activities, the project applicant shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine whether the construction project's activities would impact vibration sensitive equipment located in adjacent buildings within 100 feet of the construction activity. If it is determined that no impact would occur then construction activities shall begin and no further action need be taken. MM 4.4-2(b) If the project applicant determines that vibration sensitive equipment has the potential to be affected, it shall implement a construction schedule to ensure that construction activities would occur during times when vibration sensitive equipment would not be in use. Population/Housing N/A Public Services N/A Recreation N/A Transportation/Traffic MM 4.7-1(a)Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp(East of 1019): ■ Create additional westbound right-turn lane. MM 4.7-1(b)Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp(New): ■ Add an additional lane on northbound Dubuque Avenue between the U.S. 101 Ramps intersection and Oyster Point Boulevard. Reconfigure the northbound approach to Oyster Point Boulevard to provide two exclusive left turn lanes,an exclusive through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes.As part of this widening,eliminate the left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to the U.S. 101 Ramps intersection(which serves mini warehouse facilities)and allow southbound left turns from the southbound through lane.This will allow provision of five full northbound travel lanes on Dubuque Avenue between the northbound Off-Ramp intersection and Oyster Point Boulevard. City of South San Francisco Sf-3084649 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR B-5 2007 • • •n Measures m Adjust signal timing. MM 4.7-2 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard(New): ■ Create an additional through lane on westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. MM 4.7-3 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive(East of 101): ■ Widen northbound Gull Drive to provide two left-turn lanes and one through/right-shared lane and adjust signal timing; ■ Existing signal modification. MM 4.7-4 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard(New): ■ The existing westbound shared through/right-turn lane shall be reconfigured to be a right-turn only lane; ■ The westbound right-turn movement shall have an overlap phase with the southbound movement; ■ The southbound right-turn movement shall have an overlap phase with the eastbound left-turn phase. MM 4.7-5 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue(East of 101): • Re-stripe existing southbound Airport Boulevard right turn lane to a shared through-right lane and southbound shared through/left lane to a left turn lane • Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to add two left turn lanes;re-stripe the eastbound through/left shared lane to a through lane and eastbound right turn lane to shared through/right lane ■ Provide a third left-turn in the westbound approach and restrict truck traffic on westbound Grand Avenue ■ Exiting signal modification MM 4.7-6(a)East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard(East of 101): ■ Widen westbound Grand Avenue to add one additional through lane and one additional left turn lane. ■ Widen southbound Forbes Boulevard to add one through lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane ■ Widen northbound Harbor Way to add one through lane,one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right turn lane to a right turn lane to a through lane ■ New signal installation ■ Signal interconnection installation MM 4.7-6(b)East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard(New): ■ The eastbound approach to this intersection shall be widened to allow the existing shared through/right-turn lane to be reconfigured into separate through and right-turn lanes and southbound right-turn overlap. MM 4.7-7 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue(East of 101): ■ New signal installation ■ Signal interconnection installation MM 4.7-8(a)East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive(East of 101): ■ New signal installation ■ Add one southbound Grandview Avenue right turn lane;add one northbound Grandview Avenue thru lane(merging back to one lane after 110 feet);re-stripe eastbound East Grand Avenue to provide one left turn lane and one shared left/through lane. ■ Signal interconnection installation. MM 4.7-8(b)East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive(new): ■ The westbound shared through/right-turn lane shall be reconfigured into a right-turn only lane.The southbound right-turn lane would then be able to become a free right turn,and shall be striped as such.These reconfigurations would cause the southbound approach to require less green time,creating more available green time for the eastbound approach. MM 4.7-9 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue(East of 101): • Widen westbound Airport Boulevard to add one additional left-turn lane and re-stripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-turn lane to make it a total of three left-turn lanes. • Modify northbound Produce Avenue to bring the southbound 101 to eastbound Airport Boulevard traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging and weaving conflicts on eastbound Airport Boulevard • New signal installation MM 4.7-10 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard(East of 101): Sf-3084649 City of South San Francisco B-6 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 2007 • • •n Measures • Widen eastbound Airport Boulevard to add one additional right-turn lane;re-stripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through lane • Widen Mitchell Avenue to add two additional through lanes and a right-turn lane • Widen southbound Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to another right-turn lane • New signal installation MM 4.7-13 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Off-Ramp(New): • Provide fair share contribution(as determined by the City Engineer)towards the re-stripe(reconfigure)of the eastbound Grand Avenue approach from an existing exclusive right turn land and a shared through/left turn lane to provide an exclusive left turn land and a shared through/right turn lane. • Provide fair share contribution(as determined by the City Engineer)towards the re-stripe(reconfigure)of the southbound Airport Boulevard approach from an existing left,shared through/left turn,exclusive through and exclusive right turn lane configuration to provide two exclusive left turn lanes,an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. • Adjust signal timing. MM 4.7-14 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 SB Fly-Over Off-Ramp(New): • Adjust signal timing. • Implement MM 4.7-2. MM 4.7-15 Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.NB On-Ramp(New): • Provide fair share contribution(as determined by the City Engineer)towards the addition of a second exclusive right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. • Implement MM 4.7-1(b). • Adjust signal timing. MM 4.7-16 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue(New): • Implement measures identified in Mitigation Measure 4.7-13. • Provide fair share contribution(as determined by the City Engineer)towards an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Miller Avenue. MM 4.7-17 Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue(New): • Implement measures identified in Mitigation Measure 4.7-15. • Provide fair share contribution(as determined by the City Engineer)towards the re-stripe of the U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue from an existing exclusive left,shared through/left and exclusive right turn lane to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane. MM 4.7-18 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue(New): ■ Provide a fair-share contribution,as determined by City Engineer,to provision of a second northbound off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline at the Dubuque Avenue offramp. MM 4.7-19 Southbound Fly-Over Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard(New): ■ Provide fair share contribution(as determined by the City Engineer)towards the construction of a second southbound off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline at the Oyster Point Boulevard off-ramp. MM 4.7-20 Northbound off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane(New): ■ Provide a fair-share contribution towards the provision of a second northbound off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline at the South Airport off-ramp.(This measure is already programmed as part of the East of 101 capital improvement program). MM 4.7-21 Northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive(New): ■ Provide fair share contribution(as determined by the City Engineer)towards the construction of a second northbound off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline at the East Grand Avenue off-ramp. City of South San Francisco Sf-3084649 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR B-7 2007 • • •n Measure Utilities/Service Systems MM 4.13-1(a) The project applicant shall include methods of water conservation in the proposed project's buildings and landscaping. These methods shall include,but not be limited,to the following: ■ Install water-conserving dishwashers and washing machines,and water-efficient centralized cooling systems in all new buildings(this method would not apply to process development or research development laboratory equipment) ■ Install water-conserving irrigation systems(e.g.,drip irrigation and Eva portranspiration-based irrigation controllers) ■ Gray water irrigation system(as detailed in General Plan Policy PF-7,but other elements of that policy do not apply here,such as wastewater treatment facilities)) ■ Design landscaping with drought-resistant and other low-water-use plants Install water-saving devices such as water-efficient toilets,faucets,and showerheads MM 4.13-1(b)The project applicant shall install separate water meters for buildings and landscaping for parcels with greater than 10,000 sf irrigated area. Sf-3084649 City of South San Francisco B-8 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR % -E a / o \ E » $ § � / [ 6 < / \ cu \ 2 § d \ \ o £ ) \ - a % ) \ e 6 0) \ \ / \ \ C 2 _& k - _ c 7 \ 0 a 7 0 7 \ \ 6 = % E E (D \ \( ( 0 f § ' . _ (D _ Z3 0) \ \ k 2 ~ \ $ $ < 0 2 n n § / ± 0 k Q- 0 0 \ ± /\/) ± \ \ @ � \ ƒ / D 0 S S 5 / D Ef 2 c 2 k 2 = E � \ = t t / b (D -0 d \ .\.\.. $_ 2 [ 0 / .e (n $ / / C ■ ) © / $ 7 ± ± 0 $ c = / ± \ 2 E $ \ \ ' / . @ E o E § n n * - 2 § / / 0c > > / v / ) � k ) 0 2 Q 7 E / \ \ b @ o . c . _ 3Lo G e . n = o @ f 2 06 @ 2 £ 6 C ® \ � E y o . ) . ® ' @ @e \ > E a $ U � £ / R , G .0 / _ \ , § R © \ $ ® \ \ 2 \ ' � ' / \ E 'k / \ \ / � � j G m 2 f 2b / \ ± / 0 \ ^ « _ 2 _ / .) # G a 2 $ \ \ : E _ E 'a n E = m / \ \ 0 k / f 2 � / \ \ / \ \ @ § / CO (D \ � k _ - (D _ A 2 m ® / o E / ) § \ + n S g a « f \ ( / 2 % \ D \ } a / ( / Of E g (n / 2 \ m = .g ( \ .- o g / / 2 \ % $ .g S 7 e ƒ C _k k 2 0 2 m Q- -0 t 2 / 2 7 © D � ± \ L k \ LU \ / .0 m ® + 2 = ± k 2 / \ 7 � E > R 7 7 m / ' 0 \ + \ .\ / \ \ / / \ \ / / 2 k ƒ $ ± ( f ± \ \ / e e > .E ± 4 0 » ± 4 4 LU 0 C4 00 0 .rn .O rn .rn .O rn r) I .0 IQ O ° o 0 a 0 O a O O O 'N 'V f� O .c 'co .co co O M O M N M M N M M Z ;O O Z ;O O V O LO (O V O LO (O = O 'co 'N f0 = O 'co 'N f0 O O ;O ;M M O O ;O ;M M O 9 O 9 O C)Fo O O H H N a) N a) N ,M LA ,N ,M LA O N O .LO f0 O N O .LO f0 pj O o ;co O m pj O o ;co O m ZD o c 'c Ln zO o 'v Ln co 'M c 'co N N 0 0 O 0 O_ O_ 07 07 LO— LO 0 O' 'W O 0 O' 'o O a o a d v m LO n o o v v o o v v (6 N O 'O '(O LD m N O 'O 'O LD wa o ;o x o ;o cl! 'N N La La o— oo �� �co rn °2 o �� �co rn ao o rn rn ao o rn rn m O O 'O 'W W O O 'O Xa o ;o ;ri M Xa o ;o ri M w w 9 9 N >O 'N N .O O — .O O �a .rn a) �a o) a) N O O O Lo N O O O Lo O O 'O 'r W O O 'O 'r W (n O ;O ;O O (n O :d :d O .LO fp 0 00 ,� ,� V 0 00 O O ' 'CO W oo O O ' 'W W .� .LO 00 ; .LO O 00 X O ,(O f� X O , O OZ O ' ;O N O Z O ' ;O N 4a L L ' . 'tot ' (-D � y O M L O M Q 0 r .LO M N r O M O O . 4a ..r...p. 0 ..�...t.. V 4a O O _ ' N ' O O N V N C M 00 O O O V N M .M a O z C) m > c O N 01 O• : Z Z 2; N z , : 16: C) N 'N C) M ;M Z O — .Y•.1 C) Q p Z H -4- N ,N M ,M O N 0 0 a U H m 0 Z M c M 'M m > (O r 'r _ - N �. O O 04' U Z Q 2. O. O_ 07 N .0 '.0 z 0 Z m N ((o ' Q O� IOC N, ln, M ;M W a > M• N In V N 3 > +•N N 'N Z (6 L m m. 04. O 5 co 'co T U N' N' .0 ..0 Q j (p• N• �o M M Z a 0) .0) p r 4 rn n0 F--I _ N r CO CO Z xd M M Z Q . LU 04 04 T N. >O NO .O N V o 0) z Z (j LL 0) .0) .�.• (O Q O ' O (n O .0 Z L U) Lo .0 .0 O v 'v �• U F c3 • E Q Lo E L L Z O ;O Z O N m. �• O O D a:o: cc cc N N (7 �o .�o Q J O.v. •� `(°n `(°n Z E d 0 Q 0 ..t.. E 0 m M m Q C 2 m E H r r N 00 0 0 0) LD 0 U z N N W c o > O N r- 01 0 M M _ N N M M Q C O z Z Q N Z U O ' O ' O LO Lo a1 a1 a1 S M 'M Q O 0 �O Z T 0 9 U Q U `5 Z o ' o U O ' O ' O O W ' W ' V N N N _ m 0 - - Z m > O z co ;co rn r- :_ O N C O Q N Q U O O O m O Z m � � Q 0 Z r Z O O o � U OOO L o o Z o .0 T o m o r- r- r- wa _0 rn U 4 3 2 � n m fA N Q m Z La °-- T U 4 H N N U T 7 O O LO V)N O O ' O ' O O 46 , D U �_ a 1 O O Z Q X d O .0 T () W O a 4-- Y O � U O ; O O 9 o Ln o Un , Un Ln >O — o o CF) CF) CF) Q O a Z _ La •Y..Y N O O Q • • 0 Q Q Z U O .0 • • A N Z E LV _ O Y •—° N x 0) N � d • N N i OZ V 'V Z 0 •2 O °-- H C U :0.'S ..0- _� N m L m w c3 J 0 J O • i : NN C� CO 'CO N •cc C Z Q c m ma 3 O 0 m R M O ui 0) 'O N 0) 'O N 'O N 0, .0 .0 O CO O .0 Q N Q O) C O) CO N W 00 Q CO �LO Q CO 0 Z O ;O .0 O Z O .0 .0 O CO V O) (O w V D) O O O O ;O .0 O O O .0 .0 O T T O 9 O 9 Q Q Fo O O H H O 'V O O O N 'O) Ln N O N CD 'O) Ln N O) C— N O) CO N N N O O Q Q O_ O_ 07 07 LO— LO— a o ;o ;o a o ;o ;o N O 'O 'O O N O 'O .0 0 O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o ;0 0 w w La La O 0 O O 'LO 'O r 0 O 'LO 'O r a o ;o ;o a o ;o ;o (6 O O 'O 'O O m O O 'O 'O O a T O ;O ;O O W a T O ;O ;O W O > 9 N 9 >O >O O� O� LL LL N LO 'V 'O W N Lo 'V 'O W Q O 'O O O Q O 'O O O U) O ;O ;O O U) O ;O ;O O O W 'M 0) 0 O W 'co 0) � '� ' Q Cfl 'Lo 'o N Q 'Lo 'o N N cc ,^ V X CO 'co 'co X CO 'co 'co O O 'co N O O N L Z C0 ;(0 ;O ll'l z C0 ;(0 ;o ll'l cc z 0 O) 'LO 'co f, 0 O) 'LO 'co f, O .0 'r O O O .0 'r O O d' O 'O 'O d' O 'O 'O LO. N .0 'N (6 Z C.00 ' W (� 'V H 'M 'O CJ ~ � �O �O� (c 07 Cl) '0) 'LO 07 Cl) Y N 'O) 'Cl) Y N 'O) J O CO (O CO (O �N z _ z L +� L (6 N z Q' ya f3 z ) Q' r a c0i o' = O _ -o 0 ' . 0' Q O W C J >,� J � > L O '��; O N Cfl 00 0 I- 0 O 'O Z O 00 '00 '00 O 0 0 ;0 0 0 ;o 0 0 0 Q O N N Z Z Z V O O V O = O O'O Q = O O 0 O :0 Z 0 10 o T � T 0 9 O 9 0 — Q 0 p Z p O O H H O O N .O O m 0 O 'O Q m 0 O O z 0 O O Z z 0 .O O N N 0 O 0 Q 0 Z O_ O_ 07 07 L— L N0 O 'O Q ND O O O O d~ o ,O Z d~ o ,O ,o o �LO �� O O O .O .O O (6 N O 'O Q (6 N O 'O 'O O Z o o 0 0 a o ;o w w a ; E O)cC ZO)cC La La O m 00 '0 Q 0 ° m o0 '00 00 Oo a o ;o Z a o ;o 0 0 m O 'O Q m O O 'O 'O O x a O .0 Z x d O O O O W W a Z a La La N O O N .O O 0 O 'O Q 0 O O (n O O Z U) O O O O 'O Q 0 'O O 0 O O Z 0 O O L U x O O x 'O O O O 'O Q C 0 ' 'O O L Z O .0 Z Z O O cc ca y 0 V 0 Q O .0 0 z 0 � 'o r r Cr cc 'a f3 T 5 c _ ' ' Q r N U) Q 0 CD co 00 O w O 'O 'O O N O O O O 0 O ;O ;O O 0 Z V O O 0 ;O o 0 9 0 mo H O N O O O 0 0 O_ 07 LO— N o O 'O O O ° O ;O ;O O �LO o o o o m o o o O L O ;O ;O O wa LLO� La o m °o °o '° o o o o a o ;o ;o o w O L O O O O X O ;O ;O O LU m (1) 9 >o a� LL N O O 0 O O (n :o O CO 0 o o L (6 r 0 ;O o U) O cc CO cc E --F---F-- C O O O °o °o N N _0 o E! i c y 7 (D 7 ca }' F F N cn N 0) O O c c3 c O ;rn o N O N °° U > 3 �o Lo cc U m cc cc L (6 (6' a U R � C= Q N C= Q 0 L O C O a F C Q C G 9 EU C�a m N � Q > co O ti O op O 1� 00 d7 % -E a / o \ E » $ § � / [ 6 < 0 \ cu \ 2 § d \ \ o £ ) \ - a % ) \ e 6 0) \ \ j \ / § § g m / = § ] ) 0 0 \ 4 4 CL 0 f ) ) = e a a � � g k \ ° - § f E ( \ \ < c \ \ a k 0 0 0 2 0 / ( ( � < 2 0 c ± 3 k k o m 2 \ (n \ \ \1 c6 \ 4 a \ \ ) / _ E ± ± - @n .@ ) / / � \ ƒ / D 0 S S 5 / D Ef 2 c 2 k 2 = E � \ = t t / b (D -0 d \ .\.\.. $_ 2 [ ( ± / .e (n $ / / C ■ ) © / $ 7 ± ± 0 $ c = / ± \ 2 E $ \ \ ' / . @ E o E § n n * -2 2 § / / S c > > / v / a_ 0 2 Q 7 E / \ \ � b @ o . c . _ 3 � G e . n = o @ f 2 o6 @ 2 £ 6 C ® \ � E y o . ) . ® U$ \ � § /© R\ G0 LU $ ® \ \_0 , R / 2 \ ' � ' / \ E 'k / \ \ / � C j G m 2 f 2b / 0 ± / 0 \ ^ « _ 2 _ / .) # G a 2 $ \ \ : E _ E 'a n E = m / \ \ 0 k / f 2 � / \ \ / \ \ @ § / CO (D \ � k _ - (D _ A 2 m ® / o E / ) § \ + n S g a « f \ ( / 2 % \ D \ } a / ( / Of E g (n / 2 \ m = .g ( \ .- o g / / 2 \ % $ .g S 7 e ƒ C _k k 2 0 2 m Q- -0 t 2 / 2 7 © D � ± \ L k \ LU \ / .0 m ® + 2 = ± k 2 / \ 7 � E > R 7 7 m / ' 0 \ + \ .\ / \ \ / / \ \ / / 2 k ƒ $ ± ( f ± \ \ / e e > .E ± 4 0 » ± 4 4 LU 0 C4 00 0 0 ,.0 L` 0 ,.0 L` co N O O r le O 1 M O M O M 0 ' O 0 0 O O LO W 0 ' Co O W Co 'O W 0 M M 0 M M N M M N M M Z ;O O Z ;O O V O LO ;N fl V O = O 'co = O 'M C) O ;O ;M M U O ;O ;M M 0 9 0 9 C) C)Fo O O LO H H N ,M f0 ,N ,M f0 O N O (O f� O N O O m O O ;(O O LO m 0 O ;O O o zU o c 'v m zU o � 'v m CO 'O 00 ;c 'O 00 lo W W " W _ __-4__-4 _ N N 0 0 U U O_ O_ 07 07 LO— LO 0 o' ''o O 0 o ' 'W O a �� a n _ n _ o o o o (6 N O 'O '(O f0 (6 N O 'O a o ;o ;M M M a o ;o ;M W W cl! 'N N La La o- oo °co rn °2 oo °co rn ao o rn rn ao o rn rn co oo co oo m O o 'o ' (6 O o 'o ' Xa o ;o ;co M Xa o ;o ri M w w 9 9 N >O 'N N �O O O O a o) rn a o) a)LL N O O) V M N O O) V M 0 O 'O 'Co W 0 O 'O 'Co W (n O ;O ;O O (n O :d :d O � c 0 o ' 0 0 ' C� co o C� c 0 O r W O r o W �2 N O O O O O O O : O O L N 0 CO �� �rn � f4 0 � �c°o o � � 0 � M N LLO M O Q r 0 O O _ ' N ' O O N V N C M 00 O v O O ° z C) > c m � O Q 01 O N Z Z c 2; N, : O Z O — .Y•.1 C) Q p Z H 4- M ,M 0 N (O (O Q U H m 0 ' Z M 0' O 'O m > co- (O l _4 W _(6 cr): O, O 04' U z Q 2: O O_ 07 N W 'W Q ° Z m N (o '(o Q (\I.O L r ;r d T M W m' m �n� c. > +•N N 'N Z m LL °a m rn. 04 O 5 O 'O T U N' N' CO CO Q O m m Z (6 a o) ° p m r 4 rn nO N F--I r� Q xd M M Z Q Lu 04 04 T m V N� >O N Q O .o N V o 'o Z LL o) o) Q p ° ° 0 u) o O Z L O O N O z _ V 'V • �• 0 0 ++ N U g F c3 • E U) U) Ox Z 0 v) M. >. -.o; .6; cc cc m E N N 0 rn rn Q � J O.v. •� 0 Z m d 0 Q 0 ..t.. E �_ O a U) a ° ° m m Q 0 H r r N 00 0 0 0) LD 0 U z N N W c o > O N r- 01 0 M M _ N N M M Q C O z Z Q N Z U O ' O ' O LO Lo a1 a1 a1 S M 'M Q O 0 �O Z T 0 9 U Q U `5 Z o ' o U O ' O ' O O W ' W ' V N N N _ m 0 - - Z m > O z co ;co rn r- :_ O N C O Q N Q U O O O m O Z m � � Q 0 Z r Z O O o � U OOO L o o Z o .0 T o m o r- r- r- wa _0 rn U 4 3 2 � n m fA N Q m Z La °-- T U 4 H N N U T 7 O O LO V)N O O ' O ' O O 46 , D U �_ a 1 O O Z Q X d O .0 T () W O a 4-- Y O � U O ; O O 9 o Ln o Un , Un Ln >O — o o CF) CF) CF) Q O a Z _ La •Y..Y N O O Q • • 0 Q Q Z U O .0 • • A N Z E LV _ O Y •—° N x 0) N � d • N N i OZ V 'V Z 0 •2 O °-- H C U :0.'S ..0- _� N m L m w c3 J 0 J O • i : NN C� CO 'CO N •cc C Z Q c m ma 3 O 0 m R M O ui 0) 'O N 0) 'O N 'O N 0, .0 .0 O CO O .0 Q N Q O) C O) CO N W 00 Q CO �LO Q CO 0 Z O ;O .0 O Z O .0 .0 O CO V O) (O w V D) O O O O ;O .0 O O O .0 .0 O T T O 9 O 9 Q Q Fo O O H H O 'V O O O N 'O) Ln N O N CD 'O) Ln N O) C— N O) CO N N N O O Q Q O_ O_ 07 07 LO— LO— a o ;o ;o a o ;o ;o N O 'O 'O O N O 'O .0 0 O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o ;0 0 w w La La O 0 O O 'LO 'O r 0 O 'LO 'O r a o ;o ;o a o ;o ;o (6 O O 'O 'O O m O O 'O 'O O a T O ;O ;O O W a T O ;O ;O W O > 9 N 9 >O >O O� O� LL LL N LO 'V 'O W N Lo 'V 'O W Q O 'O O O Q O 'O O O U) O ;O ;O O U) O ;O ;O O O W 'M 0) 0 O W 'co 0) � '� ' Q Cfl 'Lo 'o N Q 'Lo 'o N N cc ,^ V X CO 'co 'co X CO 'co 'co O O 'co N O O N L Z C0 ;(0 ;O ll'l z C0 ;(0 ;o ll'l cc z 0 O) 'LO 'co f, 0 O) 'LO 'co f, O .0 'r O O O .0 'r O O d' O 'O 'O d' O 'O 'O LO. N .0 'N (6 Z C.00 ' W (� 'V H 'M 'O CJ ~ � �O �O� (c 07 Cl) '0) 'LO 07 Cl) Y N 'O) 'Cl) Y N 'O) J O CO (O CO (O �N z _ z L +� L (6 N z Q' ya f3 z ) Q' r a c0i o' = O _ -o 0 ' . 0' Q O W C J >,� J � > L O '��; O N Cfl 00 0 I- 0 O 'O Z O 00 '00 '00 O 0 0 ;0 0 0 ;o 0 0 0 Q O N N Z Z Z V O O V O = O O'O Q = O O 0 O :0 Z 0 10 o T � T 0 9 O 9 0 — Q 0 p Z p O O H H O O N .O O m 0 O 'O Q m 0 O O z 0 O O Z z 0 .O O N N 0 O 0 Q 0 Z O_ O_ 07 07 L— L N0 O 'O Q ND O O O O d~ o ,O Z d~ o ,O ,o o �LO �� O O O .O .O O (6 N O 'O Q (6 N O 'O 'O O Z o o 0 0 a o ;o w w a ; E O)cC ZO)cC La La O m 00 '0 Q 0 ° m o0 '00 00 Oo a o ;o Z a o ;o 0 0 m O 'O Q m O O 'O 'O O x a O .0 Z x d O O O O W W a Z a La La N O O N .O O 0 O 'O Q 0 O O (n O O Z U) O O O O 'O Q 0 'O O 0 O O Z 0 O O L U x O O x 'O O O O 'O Q C 0 ' 'O O L Z O .0 Z Z O O cc ca y 0 V 0 Q O .0 0 z 0 � 'o r r Cr cc 'a f3 T 5 c _ ' ' Q r N U) Q 0 CD co 00 O w O 'O 'O O N O O O O 0 O ;O ;O O 0 Z V O O 0 ;O o 0 9 0 mo H O N O O O 0 0 O_ 07 LO— N o O 'O O O ° O ;O ;O O �LO o o o o m o o o O L O ;O ;O O wa LLO� La o m °o °o '° o o o o a o ;o ;o o w O L O O O O X O ;O ;O O LU m (1) 9 >o a� LL N O O 0 O O (n :o O CO 0 o o L (6 r 0 ;O o U) O cc CO cc E --F---F-- C O O O °o °o N N _0 o E! i c y 7 (D 7 ca }' F F N cn N 0) O O c c3 c O ;rn o N O N °° U > 3 �o Lo cc U m cc cc L (6 (6' a U R � C= Q N C= Q 0 L O C O a F C Q C G 9 EU C�a m N � Q > co O ti O op O 1� 00 d7 % - A A / \ ± 0 $ § ( E a � co ƒ \ 0 / 3 \ \ t U) 7 A § j- \ o & 3 [ E \ _ _ \ @ j \ 0 2 k ® 0 « CL � ° � ° \ c \ y = _ _\ k 0 0 0 0 0 % \ & & CL Mn \ f Q f 0 7 k k k ( 0 g 0) % % v 2 k 0) \ \ c o 0 ƒ § j 3 \ / $ $ @ « 7 0 = _ _ § 7 3 0 7 [ \ \ 0 0 o \ : w : p E � $ £ \ \ / : \ : ( 2 / L 3 ) -0 7 7 06/ k \ k \ \ \ E $ E E a c o E : \ = a a 17 / § 7 § cu cu 2 \ 0 \ / m $ ± ± ■ r / $ f 2 2 _ © 2 o m / � I v E § \ \ © E _ _ i . : CL % E � -0 \ � � e 3 2 « / - 0 2 u ° E O ¥ . A . = 2 6 r \ § % / q o \ 2 \ \ � \ : 7 : $ u 0) \ o # _ E _ 0 . \ \ E % w / � � � � \ 0 i $ k $ \ \ 0 CL q u q I2 o O / \ q _ _ k / E 0 ~ \ a _ 2 k § \ ¥ £ / $ \ k E E e e 2 E o e \ \ k / f 2 m o = _ e 5 0 E \ \ q \ \ R o a ' U \ o E A 2 @ 0 ° \ % \ k \ 2 § \ G = S o ( § \ e o \ 2 E _ _ = g m 2 \ o t \ u \ q 3 \ E o E m o o = E 2 / / ) _ G 2 3 \ k \ 7 5 § g k \ \ / 0 /2 e = m § m .cu S \ R k \ CU E 0 \ e a E \ U cu CU 2 o E CL 0 f L 2 0 ® ' L \ § CU 2 ±_ \ E \ U " . 2 / e m / l \ ' q \ o / cn \ ■ > d '\ \ \ .0 % . § 2 \ / a 2 \ \ j / / . _ % § 2 \ / / o ■ % E \ s ° o o / o o $ f w \ / / w \ \ LU 0 C� 4- 0 \l N . M M M N � O o0 .M .0N .d) U N N U O '0 '0 N N O 'N 'O 'O '(0 00 Z O '0 '0 '0 '0 O .r...r...r...r... V O O U O 'O 'O 0 '(0 N T N � ..r�.r...r...r.. r O ,° 0 0) r rn U 0 , ' N 0) O 0 ,N .N . It H N 00 o r o N 0 0) 0 Cl) m0 O) C .(NO r Z U 0 .N .(`� '0 .(`! r O d) U O 'O 'O O 0 0 .0 .0 'M .0 Cl) LO m 0 O 'N '(0 'O 'O 00 m� o' o 'U 'o' o i° n L O 'O 'O 'O 'O o wa o� :_N r� La 0 O 'N 0 'O (0 O '0 'N '0 '0 N L O 'O 'In 'O 'O Un x a 0 0 '0 '0 '0 0 w 0 0 >0 o 0 Do Do a 0) 0) LL N O :C, Cl) U O 'O U) O 'O 'O O U 0 .N Cl) 01 O� U o 'N V (O (0 (O _ x 0 In 0 . .00 (O CD 0 Z O 'N ' 0 f+ .r...r...r...r. L (� r .0 N 0 0 M 'co Q 0 N 0 L � E N . N .0 0 N Q W ' N � U N 4- 0 co p O'� 00 0 O 'r :ON U O 'M N :M N N d) _7 N N Q O 'o 'o 'rn o N O 'N 'O 'O 'V f� Z O 'O 'O 'O 'O O .r...r...r...r... V O '00 'O ' 'co 00 2 Q '? '? It U O 'O 'O 0 O O(4 O O O Cl) 0) O 0 N (C N p N F- 0) ° 0) O) ' M p N O '0) r 09 _ m Q r o .0 N Z U ° C\[ N ° O Q O O U O 'O 'O O O 'O 'O 'N 'O CV p O 'O 'O 'I� 'O f- m LO 0 O 'N '(0 'O 'O 00 m� o 'o 'U 'o' o i° n L O 'O 'O 'O 'O o wa oLQ r� :_N La 0 O 'N O 'O Lq (0 O 'O 'N 'O 'O N L O 'O 'In 'O 'O 1n x a O O 'O 'O 'O o w 0 0 >O o 0 Do Do a 0) of LL Q O N C? 1: 0 U) O 'O 'O O _ L Q ° N (0 � i• O 'M (A U ° N (0 (O 0 0 Ox ° (O m O ' _ z O N (p w 0 O L (� r O O N N N M C C CL d 0 M •p • N 0 0 O V 0 0 0 0 = v Q ;w ' 0 04 V r r N 0 Cl) 0 M 'i 4- O N •N Lo 0 17 T7 OO •O Q U N N Z 0) 0) r 0. > N o o Z � 3 CY)' N' V Z O O �• N• Q O ..r.. N Z c ' U o :o: o O o = c c z o 6 6 6 U o 'o O O o :o U FU N ,N Z U O1 'O1 o U O •O O r 0 0 'IT o •o ; o Op •Op i °O-0 Q o H _ H "T (o Z U (v (v rn .rn m > ..r.. N N: a..a. O •O Z Q N 0 0 •o U 00 :00 : 0 (0 m o Lo N (O (O Q = 0_ 0 O ,O Z •Y••Y• •i•.i O : M N N N O Z O O O X Z N l) O): (f): O V : (h. N. O (O O 1 1 1-W (n v rn O > _ 'T N U) '-'N 0 0 O Z U LL r > rn: I- CY) U m . 00 N U N O d� O �O Z N (6 � O W I� r.. N O N O_ L E U 'U Q > W 0- O ,0 Z Q • • > >' >' N: N ..r... V. N. O � U O 'OO 000. '000. Q N (O. N. O 00 O) .O) . O) a�� rn � Z �• �• O LL = ...... ...... O Q U) O (o :(o Q r c 3 E. E . . Q. Q. O 0) 0) � Y• O• O 00 00 L Y O . Q O O• N • O Z (M • Z 0 N N• >• (6 4a N N • > • (6 • d� ): d �Q �2 16 E ..r.. .08.'_� H .06 :.r 0 T7 E CL .� � a cn O Q Q a m a 0 LM O L L w E ~ U � � N Cl .4 It 4- 0 N\l U LO In .N N Z U M M O O 00 00 Cl) Cl) O (D :. :. Q N o 'O Z Z O O O 'O V N 'N '(0 '(0 V V O O Z U O O O O T O � :0 .O U o .Do Cl)i ri -(o -(D Q rn .0) O .O Z N N O O F- 00 .00 .Cl) .Cl) O .O T7 T7 00 00 0 Cl) co (0 Q Z U N N .O .O Z 00 00 Cl) .M O O 'O 'O 'O U ° ° ° ° Z p O O O O m N O O N O O 'O 'N a0 M N O 'O 'O 'O Q X a O 'O 'O 'O Z W > +=N Q �� Z La ° p O o 0 O O N N Z O ME o 0 0 o Q L O .O .O .O Z LU `> 0 0 >o La O N N Q U) O O Z N N L O M M Q U N N Z W }...}...}.. N x Q L z N N Z N (� O :0 .� :o :o Z o o LU U w�'w�:z�:zj r 0 LCj N .N O N .N O 0) In .N .(O N In .In C\l 0 .(�O O N 0 C\l .((O O N U - .c c Cl) - M t 4— 0 Cl) 'N 'O In 0 Cl) 'N 'O In 0 N O 'O 'O O N O 'O 'O O Z O 'O 'O O Z V Cl) 'Cl) 'O (O V Cl) 'Cl) 'O w = O 'O 'O O = O 'O 'O O U 0 '0 0 o U o '0 0 0 0 r .N O 0 r .N O .00 00 .00 00 4 "0 I 0M G 0M V C( (0 � Cl) M n r N o0 00 r N .o0 00 r r m0 O .to .to O m0 O .to .tn O Z U (o ,Cl) c O Z U co ,(n V o 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O :0 O U O O O O U O 'O O O 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 m m In 0) O O .0 0) O O O O N � -7 O O N 0 0 'O O o w In w In (4 N O 'O 'O O (4 N O 10 'O O wa o 'o 0 o wa +=N +=N La La o 'rn 'O O o 'rn 'O O 0 -7 'O 'O N 0 'O '0 N a F- 0 'O 'O o �° O 'O O O O 'O O O Xa 0 o Xa 0 0 w w >o >0 > 0 > o La La N :0 N N :0 C, 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 10 .0 O U) O 'O 'O O U) V 'In 'V Cl) V 'In 'V co 0 N 'O 'O M 0 N 'O 'O M U 'O N U 'O N V X r 'In 'V w X r 'In 'V w 0 V 'N 'O r 0 V 'N 'O r L Z O N Z O N ..�...}.. ..L...i.. z (� (O 'V 'O O (O It 'O O 0 r r 'O M 0 -7 — 'O M O 'O .0 O w' 0 0 'O O N r 'r N r 'r r r Lo Lo J 00 ;N 00 00 ;N o0 /A z Cl) .N . z M .N 2 CL CL CL L6 4— 0 co 0) .In M 0) .In M 0) V .(O .0) 0) V .(O .0) O .c � M OU .c L M In .N 00 In .N 00 0 N '0 '0 N '0 '0 Z O 'O 'O O T T V 00 'CO N V 00 'M N = N 'O V = N 'O V U o 'o 0 o O N .� O N .� U r V ( Cl) U ( Cl) �2 �O ' N� � Coll! n N LO 00 In N 00 i. N N O O O O U U C� O O W o r- .� '� o r- .� '� fn O O O f O O O O H O .O O H O .0 Zr o o o w r o o 0 '` N 00 0 '` � N 00 0 Y r 'M 'O Y r 'M 'O Cl) .00 .I n Cl) .00 .I n J () In .00 U N .00 0) r ,17 ,O 0) r , ,p W N .00 .N W N .00 .N ' .L...a 2 E N d CL R fC d CL R CL O o >, > Q L6 O O 4- 0 rn 0 z 0 0 0 U o 'o U O '0 '0 0 0 0 'o Q O o o o ° N ' ' o z o Z z 0 0 0 _ O 'O Q 0 '0 :0 O = O O O o U 0 '0 Z U o '0 0 0 O O U o 'o Q U o 'o 'o °o 0 '0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 H H m0 o 'o Q m0 o 0 0 °o zU 0 '0 Z zU O 0 0 0 o 'o Q o 0 0° o m m `n0 O 'o `n0 O 0 '0 0 N 0 O 'O Q N 0 O '0 .0 O a� o 'o Z a� o 0 0 0 w� w� R N 0 'O Q R N O 'O 'O O w w a o 'o Z a O '0 '0 0 >u? >u? +=N Q =N La La 0 '0 °0 O 0 '0 0 o O o 0 0 aF- o '0 Z aF o '0 '0 0 �° o 'o o 0 0 0 R o o Xa o '0 Z Xa o 0 0 0 w w >o >0 > 0 > o La La N O 'O N O O 0 O 'O Q 0 10 O U) O '0 Z U) O O '0 Q O O O U o 'o Z U 0 0 L LN Q O 'O Q O Q 'O O Z O 'O Z Z O O C M .M Z 0 ^ 0 •....• •.......... cc 5 C .a� O L m m. vii a. vii O E F Q U r o• C o•a F N cn QU'Ua'� CO CO 4- 0 0 O O :0 O N O O 'O O O 'O 'O O U O O :0 O N O O 'O O z O 'O 'O O V O O :0 O = O O O O U O O O O T 0 U O 'O :0 O _ O .0 .0 O R 0 F- 6 C\l 0 0 :0 0 FO 0 O O 'O O U O 'O 'O O a...a. O U O O :0 O O 'O 'O O p O 'O 'O O m N.R. O 'O 'O O 0 O .0 .0 O LO m� o 0 0° O L o O O o wa o� > . +=N La O p O O :0 O �� o O 0 'O 'O O a ' 0 0 (n° O 'O 'O O ME O O O O x o 0 0 0 LU `> 0 0 >o La N :0 O 0 'O O U) O O ...+...+... T U :0 O L (2) U 'o o N co '0 0 O 0 'O o N o O o O z 0 0 N _ O N � C ' o D 0 " U o c� 3 � M .0 .0 ri L O O co = j R R _ i+ Q CL Da. �j Q N U) Q U CD O ti ti 0 Cl) N O (C! d) Cl) O 0 0 M O N N N M O (0 O .Cl) Z O 'O 'O O 01 .(O N O N .M Z }...}... L V (O N O) N f� U N V O (0 O 0) N V Q '(O . Z N ..}...}... Z O 'O 04 p O Cl ') co Do '(O ..}... M .N .N N (p (0 N ( N Cl! H U LO '(o N N .}.. 0 0) 'N Q O .(0 Z ...}...}... O O N O T U o x �.. p 0 Z }...a. w }-- O o � 0 Z .......... z 0 ° ..i... .a O N 0) 00 00.N .M V U Q 0� M(0 ( N7 O M00 O Nom.00 X00 a c a L Y c. cm rz CL a a� O N • E N J O �o ti 4- O N _ o N 00 N O N O N N r U N N Cl! O m N M O Z O O O O T V Cl) 0) Cl) = 01 V O -t U Cl) O In ...+...+ N ... O N (0 O f0 U V: N V V O Cl) In p 0 � .LO .N H N O O U o (n O 0) N v N Q 0 E U ......... L C 0 3 Co O N p) 0 N.0 . cq 0 Cl) 0) C� 7 , ,O C 00 r 0 M ++ N R 2 N. R CL o. O N N J O �o ti O pp O 4- 0 M r o : Lo N N M M 0 (0 .M 00 ;z O O :0 O O N O 'O O O a) 0 (D (O 'M Q > 0 0 ' z H F } U o0 M ' O C, M ..�.. 2 '0) 'N U 'O N N 0 O 'o Q N 0 'O Z N ...F...}... Z O 'O T 0 0 0 .N N ...�... (4 001 �� .M p N ' M 0 .0 z r } N N N }.. 0 O O ;01 T7 T7 U w C\l It z r } p 'M ~ �.. 0 U T U o x �.. 0 0 Z }. w �.. O o � O z N ......... z N �N I ;� O Q N M n V .� z J o cC a aa1 +�+ w m •s m CL y a O a a1 o. Q O ++ f� s= a1 >' V 04 O p: 0 N cq (O 0 LO N ' N 00 U M V Cl) 0 O 'O O O N O 'O O O z O 'O O O T V 0) 'In Cl) I'- 2 N '? U 00 'O ° N 0 V co O LO O In N O H N O O U 0 x O z c� N ......... Lo Lo N a >>, Q o ro 'ro M J � cC a 2 CL R _ a w : a o. Q O J N > / N O ) Co O O ATKI14S Los Angeles, ( alifor6a 90025 Atkins North America, Inc. �2301 Wilshin," Boulevard, Suite 430 Telephone:+1.310-268-8132 Fax: +l.]|O,2@@,8175 wwwatkinsgiobaicom/northammrica Memorandum n�n������ra����um To: Sorn BouUsto, PE. City of South Son Francisco Engineering Department From: Brad Lane, AiCP Dote: July 5, 2012 Subject: Genentech MEiR Updated Traffic Impact Analysis U����������UU����U���� nn� nn��������* nn��n� The City ofSouth Son Francisco (City) is processing on application from Genentech to update the company's Master EiR' (2007 MEiR) for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update. The purpose of this Traffic Impact Analysis (TiA) is to update the traffic ono|yaia that was conducted for the 2007 MEiR, dated March 14. 2007. with the more recent traffic analysis done for the East of101 Area Stud y u (East of 101 Study), doted October 21. 2011. The 2007 MEiR evaluated o study area of approximately 220 acres, of which 160 acres currently comprise the Genentech Master Plan District which is divided into the Lower, Upper. Mid. and West Campus neighborhoods. At bui|dout of the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech expected to o|rnoat double its 2008 size (from 2.8 million square feet [afl to roughly 8 million af\ of offioe, research and deve|oprnent, manufacturing apooe, amenities bui|dinga, and parking structures. The TiA analyzes the 220- acre of the 2007 MEIR study area, and evaluates the remaining development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan Diatrict, which ia approximately 2.708.100af. No changes have been proposed to the 2007 Facilities Master Plan. The goal of this TiA is to determine if bui|dout of the Genentech Master Plan District would result in any new ormore severe traffic impacts than those identified in the 2007 MEiR. Data sources for this TiAvvere developed in consultation with City staff and were token directly from the East of 101 Study. in order to determine potential irnpoota resulting from full bui|dout of the Genentech Master Plan Diatriot, the following scenarios from the East of 101 Study were utilized: m Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project)—based on recent tnaMio counts and field aurveya, this scenario includes approximately 3.573.188af of development within the Genentech Master Plan District oa analyzed in the East of101 Study. City of South San Francisco, Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion/Corporate Facilities Master Plan Update' Partially Revised Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (December 11. 2006). Revised Section 4.7 (Traffic and Circulation). 2 City of South San Francisco, Final Report—Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area in the City of South San Francisco (October 21. 2011). City of South San Francisco Sf-3084649 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMBR Sam Bautista, PE July 5, 2012 ATTICIIMS Page 2 ■ 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project)—Assumes full buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District, as well as buildout of the East of 101 Area as analyzed in the East of 101 Study. The TIA then developed two additional scenarios to determine if buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District would result in new or more severe impacts than identified in the 2007 MEIR: ■ Existing Plus Project Scenario—This scenario assumes 2009 conditions with the additional traffic that would result from full buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District. ■ 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project)—This scenario includes full buildout of the East of 101 Area, but does not include new development in the Genentech Master Plan District. In addition to determining potential traffic impacts resulting from full buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District, this TIA uses this information to determine the Master Plan Build-Out project's fair share contribution to the East of 101 Planned Improvements (East of 101 Planned Improvements), and also to determine if any additional mitigation above and beyond the East of 101 Planned Improvements would be required with full buildout of the Master Plan. No new traffic data was collected for this TIA. As discussed below, the traffic counts used for this TIA were collected for the East of 101 Study in 2008 and 2009.3 STUDY INTERSECTIONS Twenty-one intersections were evaluated as part of the traffic analysis for this TIA. The study intersections are listed in Table 1 (Study Intersections), and are also shown in Figure 1 (Study Intersections). The study intersections include all nineteen intersections that were analyzed for the 2007 MEIR (study intersections#1-19). The two intersections that were added from the East of 101 Study that were not included in the 2007 MEIR are the intersections of Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard, and Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue. These intersections were included because Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the main routes used to access the Genentech Master Plan District, and both of these intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service in the future. The existing weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle turning movement counts, pedestrian counts, and bicycle counts were collected in May 2008 and June 2009. Therefore, consistent with the East of 101 Study, the Existing Conditions analysis reflects 2009 traffic operations. 3 While the SMEIR uses a baseline of 2011, the East of 101 Study Existing Conditions Analysis relied on data collected in 2008 and 2009. Per City direction, no new traffic data was collected for this TIA, 2009 is used as the baseline for the impact analysis for the Existing Plus Project analysis and the remaining development capacity in the Genentech Master Plan District. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 3 . - Study Intersection 2007 MEIR East of 101 No. No. No. Intersection 1 1 3 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard 2 2 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S. 101 NB On-Ramps 3 3 5 Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Ramps 4 4 6 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard 5 5 10 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive 6 6 — Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard 7 7 28 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue 8 8 15 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp 9 9 14 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue 10 10 20 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue 11 11 29 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp 12 12 21 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Avenue Overcrossing 13 13 22 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard 14 14 23 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard 15 15 26 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue 16 16 27 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive 17 17 16 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue 18 18 17 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard 19 19 18 South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 On-and Off-Ramps 20 — 7 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard 21 — 9 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue TOk TF4 SRS�,q< ASTER-CITIES BLVD. .TO P G Q7 NS A y�LLS�o 1 F o L BLVD. OYSTER POINT 21 5 0 3 q 0 9� g81�. 05 a 2a� yP��. u t/F `� o``` o • 0 �O 'r; ` 101 �o i�� �% 6 ���♦♦ o J GJ\ S 7 BLVD. , MILLER rviia�/ 1 AVE. 010 1 GRAND AVE. 12 �� $ 13 14 g N rvi ADE AVE. 9 E.GRAND m HARRIS ¢ 1 OPT IRIS AUE. E. < 0 1 1 LL 11 17 18 LAWRENCE r 11 A AVE. r 1� MITCHELLAVE. � �OOG O O � m a w m U5 19WONDER- R WY. P`I� O GO S(PN LU ti Q Z P� L NORTH ACCESS,Q p NORTH ACCESS RD. Z O LEGEND 6 Study Intersection o XX AM Peak Hour Volume (XX) PM Peak Hour Volume ql ql q1 W O S.. C NORTH cii Source,TJKM,2011;Atkins,2012. Nor ro scn�e S Figure 1 Study Intersections ATKINS Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 5 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The operation of roadway facilities are described with the term "level of service". Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of intersection operations that uses an A through F letter rating system related to travel delay and congestion. LOS A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates congested conditions with excessive delays. Traffic operations at signalized intersections were evaluated using the Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method. This operations analysis method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up the queue. Table 2 (Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria) summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. In the City of South San Francisco, acceptable operations at signalized intersections are generally defined as LOS D or better. Synchro version 7.0 was used to calculate signalized intersection LOS. The Synchro worksheets are available as Appendix A Table 2 Signalized Intersection LOS Level of Average Control Service Description Delay per Vehicle (seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or < 10.0 short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle >10.0 to 20.0 lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer >20.0 to 35.0 cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, D long cycle lengths,and/or high volume-to-capacity(V/C)ratios. Many vehicles >35.0 to 55.0 stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Operations with long delays indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths,and >55.0 to 80.0 high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to F oversaturation, poor progression,or very long cycle lengths. >80.0 SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual(2000). Traffic operations at unsignalized intersections were also evaluated using the 2000 HCM method. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right-of-way. At two-way or side- street stop-controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement, the left-turn movement from the major street and for the entire intersection. For controlled approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 6 approach with the highest delay are reported. At four-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced on all approaches. Table 3 (Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria) summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Level of Description Average Control Delay per Vehicle(seconds) Service A Little or no delays 510.0 B Short traffic delays >10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays >15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays >25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays >35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded >50.0 SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual(2000). EXISTING CONDITIONS (2009 WITHOUT PROJECT) As previously described, the East of 101 Study provides analysis of the Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project) scenario. This scenario includes approximately 3,573,188 sf of development within the Genentech Master Plan District. Figure 2 (Existing Conditions [2009 Without Project] Turning Movement Volumes) illustrates the existing peak hour turning movement volumes at all study intersections, and Table 4 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Conditions [2009 Without Project) identifies the AM and PM peak hour LOS. Under Existing Conditions, all signalized study intersections operate at acceptable City standards of LOS D or better except for the Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound and Southbound Ramps intersection (LOS E during the PM peak hour). Also, under Existing Conditions, all unsignalized study intersections operate with an acceptable minor approach service level of LOS D or better. 1 N W II E E c iz o � w , j, j ' L N �+ o r�en ao_ •� 0 rsi '3Atl n131�311111 N �6 'nnnaoeatlu W p 6 U a N a c a y o 1 N 3�b ° laodaitls _ � 'nonana WOdblb ��cE PV E. Q� 0 � O� N30N1� 3Ab 031bbV NbS S SO y�S 3Ab3�dbVy K Q Q m O �� (6591964 0 /5��� y� o 0 1 �� ♦lo)}o dm (szil)bz I > lro)��mBa ti\ Q t/]66 zs� 4 j m lolo��.�o c� is�z)roc m ai b N ��� (SO sL O 1 �19 S)Q4Z '� 011) IIIII F(a£)roL m II88Z)8bZ 1 o C7 ( ��SEE)LEE gy=m ♦y }I6L L)6S O L +y lr(S}LE)Ib L �\ j (SOE)lLb Sb)SE d w I (ro)ZZ d n�' (aLb)Z qv- 6Ey I I wm ��2JJO vm (Sbl)ZOI� iaLL (Z4E)S6��mn YQQ (ESL)bOL� z� s -p - - - a °w � M No� o v 6e" -Rr} � SE)sz�a F2b vi N R}7 (O1R)(E6)SSz > S bbby III i m 6ECti w Q o >z o o`w ��' ds s "�1 °w° �,t 1 a ` 2Ja22 CQVi b0�'o-n LL a Ld ry d Q � ln1S m 6)yg g �It s– O 3 (za 1gy'v7ZIm�1 1 �Ou U n 8 bsfo l9£(lo))9no�L�ry}yo L�Ri�lLZ nrc�((Z5- J Z L. £S w) ,w 3 o y N h31�1 4�e}euo=,1 I SVO�A001. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 8 Without Table 4 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-Existing Conditions (2009 • AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour # Intersection Traffic Control Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 26.3 C 25.2 C 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S. 101 NB On-Ramps Signal 33.1 C 24.8 C 3 Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Ramps Signal 13.1 B 55.9 E 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 29.2 C 22.6 C 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 26.8 C 30.1 C 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard (1) Signal 24.1 C 29.6 C 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Two way stop 28.7 D 15.9 C 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal 29.3 C 16.7 B 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 41.8 D 32.6 C 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 6.5 A 3.5 A 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 NB Off- One way yield 18.4 C 10.4 B Ramp 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal 19.4 B 13.5 B 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 24.6 C 22.2 C 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard Signal 17.2 B 33.1 C 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue One way stop 9.3 A 15.5 C 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive One way stop 23.2 C 19.3 C 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal 37.3 D 34.3 C 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 33.7 C 43.8 D 19 South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 On and Off Ramps Signal 31.4 C 26.2 C 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal 11.5 B 12.4 B 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 14.3 B 19.0 B SOURCE: Atkins(2012)(Synchro output is included in Appendix A). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. a. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard information from the PRDMEIR,Table 4.7-2 on page 21. b. All other intersections from East of 101 Study, Table IV on pages 22,23. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 9 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project is the buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District. This growth is shown in Table 5 (Genentech Growth in Genentech Master Plan District). The Genentech Master Plan District is projected to grow from a total of 3.57 to 6.00 million sf, an increase of 2.43 million sf. Table 5 Genentech Growth in Master Plan District Land Use 2008(square feet)a Buildout(square feet' Net Change* Office 1,008,801 2,632,000 +1,623,199 Lab 1,012,674 2,000,000 +987,326 Manufacturing 1,482,213 1,046,000 -436,213 Amenities 69,500 322,000 +252,500 Total 3,573,188 6,000,000 +2,426,812 SOURCES: a. City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Study(October 21,2011),Table IX(Planned East of 101 Developments by 2035). b. 2007 Approved Capacity under Master Plan/Genentech Master Plan District. While the SMEIR uses a baseline of 2011,the East of 101 Study Existing Conditions Analysis relied on data collected in 2008 and 2009. Per City direction, no new traffic data was collected for this TIA,2009 is used as the baseline for the impact analysis for the Existing Plus Project analysis and the remaining development capacity in the Genentech Master Plan District. The resulting net change in vehicle trips traveling to and from the Genentech Master Plan District in the AM and PM peak hours is shown in Table 6 (Project Trip Generation [Net Increase in Vehicle Trips]—Genentech Master Plan District). A key assumption in the estimation of vehicle trips generated by the project is that Genentech will be able to achieve the target travel demand management (TDM) vehicle trip reductions as established by the City. The City has mandated a 25 percent reduction by 2035 for office and research and development (R&D) land uses. Mixing different land uses in close proximity will also contribute to a reduction in the number of vehicle trips generated. For example, a Genentech employee who walks from their office to one of the on-site restaurants for lunch, as opposed to getting in their car and driving to an off-site restaurant. Proposed project trips were distributed based on the same percentages used in the East of 101 Study. The trip distribution assumptions were made in consultation with City staff and are a refinement of the assumptions contained in the East of 101 Study. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 10 Table 6 Project Plan District Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Growth Trip Trip Trip 2009-2035 Rate Rate Rate (square TDM Per per Percentage per Percentage Land Use feet) Reduction KSF KSF in,out In Out Total KSF in,out In Out Total Office 1,623,199 25% 4.94 0.77 87, 13 1,087 162 1,250 0.58 17, 83 160 781 941 Lab 987,326 25% 3.28 0.48 83, 17 393 81 474 0.37 16, 84 58 307 365 Manufacturing -436,213 15% 3.25 0.62 78,22 -211 -59 -270 0.62 36,64 -97 -173 -270 Amenities 252,500 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totai 2,426,812 1,270 184 1,453 121 915 1,036 SOURCE: Atkins(2012). Existing Plus Project The Existing Plus Project scenario was created from the Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project) scenario that was conducted for the East of 101 study. The number of vehicle trips that would be generated by buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District in the AM and PM peak hours was estimated using the trip generation rates, and trip distribution percentages from the East of 101 Study. Proposed project generated vehicle trips were added to the Existing Conditions turning movement volumes, and are shown in Figure 3 (Existing Plus Project] Turning Movement Volumes). Table 7 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Plus Project) shows the resulting LOS (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Plus Project). However, it should be noted that this analysis is hypothetical because the actual buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District is anticipated to occur in the year 2015. Additionally, the Existing Plus Project analysis does not include the committed East of 101 improvements identified in the 2007 MEIR (and shown in Appendix C). Therefore, this analysis should be used for informational purposes only. Under Existing Plus Project, all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: • Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Ramps—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour • Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Drive—This intersection would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. • Gull Drive / Forbes Boulevard—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour • Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour • East Grand Avenue / East Grand Overcrossing—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour • Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue—This intersection would operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour i cow z v � •, W m H r /� noa�u FleD RO_ O` ">� a U) jJ3 bg��iiA-1 d O`V //yy rsi '3Atl n131�311111 �6 g � 'nnnaoeavu w 6 o ti rc 6 y � O _ 3�b'nonana laodaivs WOdblb ��cE PV E. Q� 0 � O� N30N1� 3Ab 031bbV NbS S SO yJg 3Ab3�dblry K Q Q m f2 N O 6 C ee o v@ o w .��zm o o UW e @ ' l• va �flj "m s@ ee Ld v 69 b@ It b 8 90•90 It 8@ It> 8 �S 9@ X111 r 96 .1115 r o�m�11 1�1♦ om� Ilb ua WQ� Z @y I'Y C g@ t 1 V• c n z@ $ C� o o ee a w cU Om Q b 8 m m m 15 8@ to Ic -6m 1 - w go'-fz� J 10 vmo b @ w Q L@ Itt m 8m y If �o a `0 j M o v o 1.�� o v v e t t Z a��a ar v 8m A. �o v 5 `o o m Y v p v e ea. d'& - a p 3 Q rll 80 6 p ♦ 0 .. r� mss 'W LL E e ? va 90� ��11 as b fi@ r Z 0 y h31�1 4�e}euo=,1 I SVO�A001. � Q a moo�om �uuuuuuuuui y D U W U W U U m U ¢ m m U o ¢ m o o U m o cL o C = R N O M M O Lo O O M Lo ti N O LI? Cl? M N O y a O L!) ri co Mo N LO I` � i O c i N rn LP) of ao m ti LO m N Cl) I` N M M N Cl) M N M r C Y O D U m M W W U U W ¢ U W U m ¢ ¢ 0 0 0 m W • , J � k cac O W C = - — — 00 — O ti M Lq Lo O O O N M N M ti M Q ) O M M M O L!7 00 D7 N N L!7 I` M I` M N Q N M ° I` N N O O N ti N O N M M M S O U U w U U U U m U ¢ m m U U U U U o U m m L ca O c = cp N a0 O O O O ti O LO -t: Lq N Lq Cl? M OR N O a OLP') LO N O m Lo O N v. O M N M LO m � M CO N m N N LCD N M N M N M M 'zl- N W Y O D U m U U U in U o ¢ U m U m ¢ U in U U m m I J cc O C = M N M ti M M O N M N M ti 'ZI: Lq M Q CO M M M CO 00 O7 M D7 ti M ti M Q N M — N N N N N O N O N M M M O N O O in •>, in in cv cv cv cv cv cv > cv cv cv >, ca ca ca a a ca cv cv cv cv C C C C C C m C C C ca C C C ca ca C C C C C o � � � o� V CO CO CO CO CO CO o co co U U) W W w w w w w O O O cao_ ca E � � • ca O a o m Q E 0 ca Q O z a) O co cm 2 ca ° U5 m � �a p co u) > -p ca co O m � O o a) a� >o Q > u'U m ca ¢ a (1) U o ca � a' > m cv Q 2 � — ca co c 12 a) > a� a� ¢ c� a a� a� 0 • d Uj — a ¢ a> > > ca > cn v (� o ° a� c> U o (� (� o ¢ _0 _0 ca � m (D > w 0O C ca a cn a a o W ca ca O w _o (� (� in > > m Q cv cv > >> Q a� W > > co W C C C C C O O a) a) N a) O O O (6 a) a) a) a) a) O O O U W > CO a� m m �° > > > a� Q Q Q Q Q m m CO CO C14 v = = = = = ¢ °- °- o o (6 m a_ N > m m m N cL cL cL cL cL N Y w Q Q N N O > > > o m ¢ O o 2- o U O O 0 w o — w w w w w a_ n n 0 0 � o .� N CO I` M O � m -5 M NT LO CO I` a0 O N m m � Sam Bautista, PE July 5, 2012 ATTICIIMS Page 13 2035 LONG-TERM CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS (WITH PROJECT) As previously described, the East of 101 Study provides analysis of the 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) scenario. In the East of 101 Study, this scenario assumes full buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District, as well as buildout of the East of 101 Area. Based on consultation with the City, the analysis for this TIA was updated to include a recently proposed project (475 Eccles Avenue) that is anticipated to be completed by 2035. The land use and trip generation for the 475 Eccles Avenue project is shown in Appendix B. Figure 4 (2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [With Project] Turning Movement Volumes) shows the intersection turning volumes at all study intersections and Table 8 (2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [With Project]) identifies the AM and PM peak hour LOS with the East of 101 Planned Improvements. Under 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project), the following intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS: • Oyster Point Boulevard / U.S. 101 NB On-Ramps—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Drive—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. • Gull Drive / Forbes Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. • Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. • East Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. • East Grand Avenue / Harbor Way/ Forbes Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. • Produce Avenue / Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour. • South Airport Boulevard / U.S. 101 On and Off Ramps—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. V N LA E � E z — 0 50 c °d$ fi Z Qd�n 0 / F U D" N � "3nv a�3id3uln � ` P� C g � "unaoeavu W � 6 e bpv'IH e yyHM 0 1 3�b3n ° laodaivs � _ poem s= WOdblb ��cE PV E. J M O Q� N30N1� 3Ab 031bIN NyS N S SO y�g 3Ab3�dblry K Q Q m (j m- 2161122) It b 10 1l2) V, O� ,"[11� 131(415) 06 <JSS\� O 1Z�R O 1 11 �90(403) �m o(4)��tl vQ e+ 'g<�sEf°, " (G6Z1a9� /} `���tl ))�m 5 e Q / m 21(10)-1 73186) <<v 9\ C c 911279) o — � O m 58) w b `�mm X10053 _ + 171 0 C7 C7 S)ESb =m F(ObZ)6LzL 9 L O m O ♦y�(9b)6gZ L (bzz)J LBS ss aid (s1�1 ro9z :D1 m 1631340) �'2Sg�!°S m ((Bbl)LZSy (ZZL)bbSy (O L9)SLLy `Q(bZ£)bOL� 'ltd �m VE)M ma c a c 6 Hn o a M w XN�� Lr6ll)LZ6 u v II Fr9CS2BlE)BEl y 6L L2v CI (B06) ZSy )SE ai ai (96)LSZ R}J ° d m o B) � w � (488)86Ly r w CI 1 ��A� Q (l90 LE—'A m� *411-�j-�sue ° J. p -��� n Q A., '� tin'ti 4t n o c0� ✓�(( o w 601 ow'o d o Z L °� 9b�O61 Ym 261391���` wa w �E } �\\y -9 X311�z1ti O 6�og�J� res�s 2 0� � �u c�N 6qa\^gip\°j5 > s ) o `w be°°� ��ti^ om F�' u�O u� MN uw ai,es N /sf�i tb�f2b89 O w Z N . (@9)9SZOL O w (2S E)8�� f wC1 o � / °z (ssU oEL�'�lt _ e We, �'m� Piz (11U osz� m� `w Q °°+y,r si i')7, h3��l Wg y�e}euo�)IH9HSA001. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 15 Table 8 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) 2035 Plus Project(includes East of 101 Planned Traffic Improvements) Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour # Intersection (2035) Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 46.4 D 45.3 D 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S. 101 NB On- Signal 45.2 D 67.2 E Ramps 3 Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Ramps Signal 36.5 D 41.6 D 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Signal 217.0 F 133.8 F Boulevard 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 136.2 F 38.5 D 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Signal 257.8 F 209.5 F 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Signal 6.3 A 8.2 A 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/ Signal 28.1 C 21.1 C U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 85.2 F 61.2 E 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 10.7 B 13.8 B 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/ One way 11.8 B 8.5 A U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp yield 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Signal 22.3 C 16.5 B Overcrossing 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 173.4 F 61.1 E 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Signal 90.6 F 88.0 F Boulevard 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Signal 10.9 B 15.8 B 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive Signal 9.9 A 21.1 C 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Signal 33.4 C 65.4 E Mateo Avenue 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Signal 19.9 B 36.8 D Boulevard 19 South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 On and Signal 62.2 E 49.0 D Off Ramps 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Signal 123.4 F 149.9 F Boulevard 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 185.0 F 21.5 C SOURCE: Atkins(2012). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. Sam Bautista, PE July 5, 2012 ATTICIIMS Page 16 2035 LONG-TERM CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS (WITHOUT PROJECT) In order to identify any significant impacts due to the proposed project, Atkins conducted a 2035 Without Project analysis. The 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) scenario was created from the 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) analysis that was conducted for the East of 101 Study and described above. To derive the 2035 Long- Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) traffic operations, vehicle trips generated by the buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District were subtracted from the 2035 With Project turn volumes. These volumes are shown in Figure 5 (2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [Without Project] Turning Movement Volumes). Table 9 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [Without Project]) shows the resulting LOS, both with and without the East of 101 Planned Improvements (shown in Appendix C).4 As shown in Table 10 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service-2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [Without Project] [Includes East of 101 Planned Improvements]), under 2035 Long- Term Cumulative Conditions [Without Project], all study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the East of 101 Planned Improvements except for the following: • Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Drive—Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. • Gull Drive / Forbes Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. • Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue—Expected to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. • East Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. • East Grand Avenue / Harbor Way / Forbes Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. • South Airport Boulevard / U.S. 101 On- and Off-Ramps—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. 4 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan, City of South Francisco Amended General Plan Policy 4.2-1-6, updated and amended December 2003. Ltd N LA E � E z — 0 50 c °d$ fi Z Qd�n / F U O`V //yy rsi '3Atl 9131311111 > Pp 0 G4p4� 3`y0ir m��y � � W � 'nnnaoeavu w � _ 6 f6 1� 7 �a co yob Jk M m 3�b3n ° laodaivs � _ onana F WOdblb ��cE PV E. � P� C e °� N30N1� 3Ab 031bIN NbS LO M O so _ N y�S 3Ab3�dbVy O �v (7 M� 18119) It b 'e19. It i vA o; 1�, ♦zo}�'(1039, o es� �s o h 81°, vQ s�^J '�i`�226 wa rsau°as� �m 4(2�6)� �o O c� w Q cm m� 1�X�♦1 104(7b5�)[�) m (ro)IzC Io 9 m♦IIII y 4— p 247 4t-2 > (aZ)V6 - (9L ro) I�l y�♦�y m m (sS I lL£)s (9£VZ (691)6rol V 6"6, a2 >0 C o (96)Zs£ 6£(£L Szro�N —'A Q(ES L ML s L O m > Q ��P�6� �( .. II r(sro)IL I6o2 r( 9l l j� bJ SJ ��OJ �E� ��� ~(ZZZ)bll C7 IZ+y�(99)Lro O C7 162�RR�/ s s y p m (a zJ r'(attJ ) R} SE SS (OroE) Ly II� W > c p�N h`rte ••O_ � `va (£z)zl�m�°, �' �o^\�����' Z Q7 cw cQ " m gl n 4 X691 ry `p n w l e�515�6'11 (7 C m�� nQ O cO �\ O > �,\� �na 0w O �( 0Q 0 0. v W Z ^��ie� m 6 1���1� v Q O C 7 pan cLL � cw �titi c�N 1oti co Q b Q> irsaj > 71 iR es ✓ w is�is jy So gsz�S %z o o p Jl N 9� R bj X682 (B£L)bL£'L��1 Z (s9)9s9£L rS 1)6y�1�} a�i C1 C m On-7 av+K 531282) a Q w h3��l Wg y�e}euo�)IH9HSA001. 0 0 0 0 o W U W ¢ U W m ¢ m o W m m o 0 o W m J m�i m mu d Y VUIIIIIlIM1VBBONNWBBiB � ,� p O 07 CO O O N N N M 07 N ti Lo OBODInO�. O NT LO M N N � ti N N W O a0 M lzl- O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � O � • riO O M U U W W W Q U W m m U W W ¢ ¢ U m W W W a0 a0 O M O U? O - M O LP) O N M M c0 M O ti M M co � co N O O� O 6j O M 07 N LO M • Q � N N N CO N LO co O LO O • • ri O in W in W in U U W m m W W U W W W W J a CO N O N CO Lo O Lo Lf? co N O O O N -z4- C c d M O O a0 M CO ' O CO ti 1-0 N N M M ti O at a N O ti N co O r O WQ D U W W W m U W U U W W ¢ W D U W W W ri • a O U-) M lzy� O ti U-) N co N ti M O U-) O ti ti M M O O M ' (-0 O O ui O M N M • Q N M O N M O O M M N O ti O a) M C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C _� _� cm ca cm _� Om Om Om Om Om Om Om Om U) U) U) U) U) U) U) Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn C O ca • Q ca ca O a) • cn O Z > ¢ ca Q N O m ca -p O m 0 -O (6 p �cf5 co co > -O ca C > LO 'p a) = a) C > ca 0 a)' iM a) m p � ? > O a) > O = O C p Q 7 Z co m o > LL _ CO O m o ° o cv >_ o a� a� O o > a�i m ca o Q m • = a_�) aa). � p > � a�i a�i Q ca m � ¢ � � � � � � o Ci ° 8(D ( ) ¢ ca (�U o = > w J 'u) m � m cv m Q (� (� ca ca cv cv -0 > _ > > a� a� a� a� a� Q >>i g>i > > N Q p a—' a� a—' a—' a�i u l 0 0 0 o m m ° o C d ai m > m m ai ai ai a� Q Q Q Q Q CO m co Q Q o > o o c °- °- U) N ' m a_ CS a- � > m m m c� c� c� c� c� a) a- a Q � _ � � Q Q M N 00 _Q U) cn cn — _2- _2- in in in in in cn U) W o ED -O ca ca ca ca ca O O >+ >+ U c �n ° ¢ 1 O o O 010 w ¢ ¢ w w w w w a- w w O O � a O N M C4 ti M O O O O (6 (6 N Cl) LO O ti 00 O N N (n m U a z 'c U) U) U) U) U) U) • cn 000�om y uuuuuuuui -�c O m W m LL. m LL. Q U W m Q m W LL. m U W m m LL- U CL >, J • •� _ M N CO M L!") LQ N N M O M M O � LP) CL s Q 'T O � M ON M N O M M O O aM0 N O M � N h y a Y O M M M LL. LL_ LL_ Q C) LL_ m m C) LL_ LL_ m Q () m W LL_ LL- W) N O • _ : N LO O N M M N ti 00 M O O O O N O Q M M 00 O N ti m O M N N CS) — ( N M • CN M M M LL. U W Q U W m Q m M L.L_ m m M M M L.L_ m a O LP) O m O O O N Lr) LP) N N M O7 N ti 'ZI: i O ti N M O ti M N 06 O M I` O M O - • W O NT LO M N 1` N LO 00 M lzl- O M • N fn �C O m U U LL. U— L" Q U W m m U LL. W Q Q U m W W W • r J a IL O I a0 00 O M O LQ • Q O Lo O ti M O Ln M O O M M N M N M N O O M O N Lo M N N M N CO N � U') M CO U! CO _N V O i7� cv cv cv cv cv cv cv ca ca ca > cv cv cv cv cv cv cv cv cv cv +� M s= s= s= s= s= s= s= s= s= s= >' s= s= s= s= s= s= s= s= s= s= � v - O o_ o a a) , ca O a a) • U) O z > Q ca o a) o m a -a ° pOp p a Fn ca o � U) co > -a ca _ > u? O a a) > s= > '• Ca_�J i m -2 L> ? >o ° a) ° O n CO � > LL m m o a) .0 o m ca o �a m Q Q (1) a) L w 0 W U5 Uj Q a) m _ j> o Q m (D > i p a uj a a °_� m ca O w (� = Q (� _Q u-a) M M M a) ¢ � — — — — � >o > > > > ca a) a) a) a) a) Q a) ao) >c�v >c�v N o Q u. :3 :3 :3 :3 :3 o a � LU o o -2 ca (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) m m ° ° � U N CO a) m m 1 L a>i a>i a) � Q Q Q Q Q cc .� .� CO CO �p Q Q o > o o c m o 0 0 o a) O 0 o s= s= s= s= s= Q o o � N m > CO m m cL cL cL cL cL a) Q Q a- a- Q p) — U) = -= v as M N CY) _Q cn cn cn — _O_ _O_ in in in in in cn cn W -0 p 'O ca ca ca ca ca U = ED Ln Q O o O O 0 LL Q w w w w w a- w w O O � � N N (n m c 0- Sam Bautista, PE July 5, 2012 ATTICIIMS Page 20 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The City of South San Francisco uses the following criteria to determine whether a project results in a significant traffic impact: Intersections An adverse effect would occur if the proposed project would do any of the following; • Degrade a signalized intersection from LOS A, B, C, or D to LOS E or F. • Cause the level of service at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E under future baseline conditions to deteriorate to LOS F. • Increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by 5 seconds or more (attributable to project generated traffic) at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or F under future baseline conditions. • Degrade an unsignalized intersection at one or more approaches to worse than LOS D as a result of project generated traffic, and if Caltrans signal warrants are met (i.e., if traffic volumes along the major and minor streets require a signal). • Increase the average vehicle delay by 5 seconds or more at the worst approach of an unsignalized intersection that operates at LOS E or F under existing or future baseline conditions, and if Caltrans signal warrants are met. LONG-TERM CUMULATIVE (2035) IMPACTS Based on the delay and LOS for study intersections for the Long-Term Cumulative Without Project, and Long-Term Cumulative With Project Conditions as shown above in Table 10, the addition of traffic associated with full buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District would cause a significant impact at the following intersections: • Oyster Point Boulevard / U.S. 101 NB On-Ramps—This intersection operates at LOS D in the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic, it will operate at LOS E. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard—This intersection operates at LOS F (150.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOS F (121.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic, it will operate at LOS F (217.0 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOS F (133.8 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. • Gull Drive / Forbes Boulevard—This intersection operates at LOS F (138.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS E (76.6 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic, it will operate at LOS F (257.8 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOS F (209.5 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. • Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue—This intersection operates at LOS E (62.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic, it will operate at LOS F (85.2 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. • East Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard—This intersection operates at LOS D in the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic it will operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE July 5, 2012 ATTICIIMS Page 21 • East Grand Avenue / Harbor Way / Forbes Boulevard—This intersection operates at LOS E (56.1 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic it will operate at LOS F (90.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. • Produce Avenue / Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue—This intersection operates at LOS D in the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic it will operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard—This intersection operates at LOS E (55.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (96.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic it will operate at LOS F (123.4 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOS F (149.9 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue—This intersection operates at LOS E (63.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic it will operate at LOS F (185.0 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. MITIGATION The primary purpose of this TIA is to determine at which intersections the planned East of 101 improvements will be sufficient mitigation, and where additional mitigation would be needed due to buildout of the Genentech Master Plan District. There are nine intersections where operations would experience a significant impact in 2035. This section describes the additional mitigation that would be required at these intersections in more detail. The mitigation would be incorporated into the East of 101 program. BUILDOUT OF MASTER PLAN DISTRICT IMPACTS (FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION PLUS ADDITIONAL MITIGATION) Oyster Point Boulevard / U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp Assuming the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard / U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp operates at LOS C (27.8 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (50.5 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS E (67.2 seconds of delay) conditions during the PM peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the Oyster Point Boulevard / U.S. 101 NB on-ramp would be reduced to LOS D (43.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 22 Mitigation for Oyster Point : • • / U.S. 101 NB • • Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Before Peak Improvement Leg Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments This mitigation cannot be implemented without disturbing the existing curb returns at the intersection throat. Northbound Additional treatments would also be on ramp to 2 lanes 3 lanes Planned East required to transition the third lane, U.S. 101 of 101 which may in turn impact freeway lane alignments.Therefore,this mitigation can potentially be implemented,but further detailed engineering analysis would be required. 1 westbound Add a westbound This mitigation can be accomplished by Westbound right-turn right,to create 2 Planned East re-striping,and narrowing,the existing lane westbound right turn of 101 lanes. (e.g.,don't need to widen the lanes structure) Add a lane to create Northbound Shared a dedicated left-turn, Planned East through/left and a through of 101 Protected overlap Permissive for the right turn Westbound right turn (allowed during the PM Additional (green westbound through ball/red ball) and northbound through phases) Convert one of the 2 westbound westbound through Westbound through lanes to a shared PM Additional lanes through/right-turn lane in the PM Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard operates at LOS F (150.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (121.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by more than 5 seconds during both the AM and PM peak hours. This would be a potentially significant impact. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 23 Mitigation for Oyster Point Boulevard Gateway Boulevard Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Peak Improvement Leg Before Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments This mitigation restricts the southbound through/left-turn lane,and southbound right- Shared through/left,and Planned East turn movement overlapping Southbound a right-turn lane Right-turn only of 101 the Oyster Point Blvd eastbound movement (Phase 6)and Oyster Point Blvd westbound left-turn movement Oyster Point Blvd has 2 Oyster Point Blvd eastbound through would have 3 lanes,and a shared eastbound through Assumes intersection splits lanes. through/right-turn lane. Eastbound AM Additional are optimized to account for The U.S. 101 off-ramp The U.S. 101 off- the new lanes. also has 2 eastbound ramp would also through lanes. have 3 eastbound through lanes. Implementation of the additional mitigation measure would not reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level in the AM or PM peak hour. It would remain a LOS F with 102.5 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour, and LOS F with 111.3 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 24 Gull Drive / Forbes Boulevard With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Gull Drive / Forbes Boulevard operates at LOS F (138.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS E (76.6 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F (257.8 seconds) in the AM peak hour and LOS F (209.5 seconds) in the PM peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation for Gull Drive / Forbes Boulevard Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Peak Improvement Leg Before Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments Southbound One dedicated left-turn lane,and 2 dedicated left-turn lanes,and AM and a dedicated right-turn lane one dedicated right-turn lane PM Additional Eastbound One dedicated left-turn lane,and Dedicated left-turn lane,and 3 AM and Additional 2 through lanes through lanes PM One dedicated through lane,and 2 dedicated through lanes,and AM and Westbound one shared through/right-turn one dedicated right-turn lane PM Additional lane (yield) Implementation of the additional mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a LOS C (32.7 seconds) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (51.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 25 Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue operates at LOSE (62.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOSE (58.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F (85.2 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. This would be a potentially significant impact. Airport Mitigation for Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Peak Improvement Leg Before Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments One dedicated right-turn lane, One shared through/right,one Southbound one dedicated through lane, dedicated through,and two Planned East of one shared through/left,and dedicated left-turn lanes 101 one dedicated left-turn lane One dedicated left-turn lane, Eastbound One shared left/through,and one shared left/through/right, AM and one dedicated right-turn lane and one dedicated right-turn PM Additional lane After implementation of the additional mitigation measure, the impact at the Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue intersection would be reduced to LOS D (54.4 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (45.7 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 26 East Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of East Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard operates at LOS F (170.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (51.1 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS E (61.1 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation for East Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Peak Improvement Leg Before Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments One dedicated left,2 One dedicated left-turn lane,3 through Planned East Eastbound through,and one lanes,and one dedicated right-turn lane of 101 shared through/right One left,2 through, 2 dedicated left-turn lanes,2 dedicated Planned East Westbound and one shared through lanes,and one shared of 101 through/right through/right-turn lane One dedicated left, One dedicated left-turn lane,one through Planned East Northbound one through,and one lane,and one dedicated right-turn lane of 101 shared through/right Northbound Add a second dedicated right-turn lane PM Additional Northbound Adjust intersection splits—change PM Additional northbound left to split phase One dedicated left, 2 dedicated left-turn lanes,one through Southbound one through,and one lane,and one shared through/right-turn AM Additional shared through/right lane Convert the dedicated right-turn lane to a shared through/right-turn lane.One Eastbound shared through/right-turn lane,3 AM Additional dedicated through lanes,and one dedicated left-turn lane. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard intersection would be reduced to LOS D (37.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (37.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 27 East Grand Avenue / Harbor Way / Forbes Boulevard With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of East Grand Avenue / Harbor Way / Forbes Boulevard operates at LOS E (56.1 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (83.2 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F (90.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. This would be a potentially significant impact. Harbor Mitigation for East Grand Avenue/ Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Peak Improvement Leg Before Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments One dedicated right turn 2 dedicated right-turn Southbound lane,one shared lanes,one through lane, Planned East through/right-turn lane, and one dedicated left-turn of 101 and one left-turn lane lane One dedicated left-turn 2 dedicated left turn lanes, Westbound lane,one through lane, 2 through lanes,and one Planned East and one shared shared through/right turn of 101 through/right-turn lane lane One dedicated left-turn One dedicated left-turn lane,one shared lane,2 through lanes,and Planned East Northbound through/left-turn lane,and one dedicated right-turn of 101 one dedicated right-turn lane. lane 2 dedicated left-turn lanes, 2 dedicated left turn lanes, Eastbound one through lane,and one 2 through,and one shared Planned East shared through/right-turn through/right-turn lane of 101 lane 2 dedicated left turn lanes, Assumes 3 eastbound through intersection splits Eastbound 2 eastbound through lanes lanes,and one dedicated AM Additional are optimized to right-turn lane account for the new lane Variable lanes: • In AM:one dedicated left-turn,2 dedicated Assumes through lanes,and one intersection splits Northbound dedicated right-turn lane AM Mnd Additional are optimized to • In PM:2 dedicated left- account for the new turn lanes,one dedicated lane through,and one shared through/right turn lane Sam Bautista, PIE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 28 Mitigation for East Grand Avenue/ Harbor Way/ Forbes Boulevard Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Peak Improvement Leg Before Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments Variable lanes: • In AM:one dedicated left-turn lane,one dedicated through lane, and 2 dedicated right- AM,and Southbound turn lanes PM Additional • In PM:one shared through/left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane,and 2 dedicated right-turn lanes After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of East Grand Avenue / Harbor Way / Forbes Boulevard would be reduced to LOS D (45.1 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOS D (51.2 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 29 Produce Avenue / Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Produce Avenue / Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue will operate at LOS C (33.4 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (51.9 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS E (65.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation for Produce . . - . Avenue Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Peak Improvement Leg Before Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments One right-turn lane,one through lane,one shared One right-turn lane,one Planned East Westbound through/left-turn lane, through lane,and 3 of 101 and one dedicated left- dedicated left-turn lanes turn lane One dedicated left-turn One dedicated left-turn This mitigation would lane,2 through lanes, lane,2 dedicated involve removal of the Southbound and one dedicated right- through lanes,and one PM Additional pork-chop islands,and turn lane shared through/right-turn signal masts,as well as lane re-striping. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of Produce Avenue / Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue would be reduced to LOS D (52.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 30 Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard will operate at LOS E (55.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (96.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by more than 5 seconds during both the AM and PM peak hours. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation for Oyster Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Peak Improvement Leg Before Mitigation After Mitigation Hour or Additional? Comments One shared 2 dedicated right-turn lanes, through/right-turn one shared right/through/left, Planned East Southbound lane,and one and one dedicated left-turn of 101 dedicated left-turn lane lane One dedicated left- One dedicated left-turn lane, Westbound turn lane,one through 2 through lanes,and one Planned East lane,and one shared dedicated right-turn lane of 101 through/right-turn lane One shared through/left-turn AM and Southbound lane,and one dedicated right- PM Additional turn lane(a"free"right) One dedicated left-turn lane, This mitigation would 2 dedicated left-turn also involve a shared through/left-turn lanes,one dedicated elimination of the Eastbound through,and a shared lane,one dedicated through AM Additional planted median on the lane,and a shared through/right-turn lane through/right-turn lane east side of the intersection. One dedicated left-turn lane, Westbound 2 dedicated through lanes, PM Additional and one shared through/right- turn lane After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard would be reduced to LOS C (32.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (54.6 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 31 Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue will operate at LOS E (63.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS B (17.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F (185.0 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation for Oyster Planned Mitigated East of 101 Intersection Before After Peak Improvement Leg Mitigation Mitigation Hour orAdditional? Comments 2 dedicated left- Northbound Shared left/right turn lanes,and Planned East of lane one dedicated 101 right-turn lane Requires the new lane be carried through the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue to the next driveway to the east (Monogram Biosciences).Also need to transition from 2 eastbound to 3 One shared A shared eastbound lanes between the through/right- through/right-turn Monogram Biosciences driveway and Eastbound turn lane,and lane,and 2 AM Additional the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull one dedicated dedicated Drive intersection. through lane through lanes The addition of an eastbound through lane may require the acquisition of right-of-way,and the movement of utilities.Therefore,this mitigation can potentially be implemented,but further detailed engineering analysis would be required. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue would be reduced to LOS C (30.9 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 32 ALTERNATIVE TDM REDUCTIONS The traffic impact analysis and mitigation measures discussed above assume that Genentech's TDM program will be able to achieve a 25% vehicle trip reduction for the office and research and development (R&D) land uses by 2035. As documented in the Genentech Annual Reports, Genentech's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program has been able to achieve fairly steady reductions in the level of auto use by its employees. Therefore, it may be possible for the Overlay Area to achieve even greater vehicle trip reductions in the future. To evaluate whether, and to what extent, even greater vehicle trip reductions may reduce traffic impacts, the traffic analysis was re-run assuming various vehicle trip reduction percentages above 25%. The same procedures were followed to estimate project trip generation. For example, Table 12 (Project Trip Generation [Net Increase in Vehicle Trips]—Genentech Overlay Area) and Table 13 (Project Trip Generation [Net Increase in Vehicle Trips]—Genentech Overlay Area) show the project trip generation for the Overlay Area that would result from a 27% and a 30% vehicle trip reduction, respectively. Table 12 Project Trip Generation (Net Increase in Vehicle Trips)—Genentech O AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Growth Trip Trip 2009-2035 Rate Rate (square TDM per Percentage per Percentage Land Use feet) Reduction KSF in,out In Out Total KSF in,out In Out Total Office 1,623,199 27% 0.75 87, 13 1,059 158 1,217 0.56 17, 83 155 754 909 Lab 987,326 27% 0.47 83, 17 385 79 464 0.36 16, 84 57 299 355 Manufacturing -436,213 15% 0.62 78,22 -211 -59 -270 0.62 36,64 -97 173 -270 Amenities 252,500 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,426,812 1,233 178 1,411 114 880 994 SOURCE: Atkins(2012). As shown in Table 14, with a 30% vehicle trip reduction, the project would generate a net increase of 1343 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 952 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. This would be 110 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 84 fewer vehicle trips in the PM peak hour when compared to the 25% vehicle trip reduction. 5 Genentech, Annual Report 2011: Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan (May 2011). Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page 33 • - 13 Project • Generation (Net Increase in Vehicle Trips)—Genentech Overlay AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Growth Trip Trip 2009-2035 Rate Rate (square TDM per Percentage per Percentage Land Use feet) Reduction KSF in,out In Out Total KSF in,out In Out Total Office 1,623,199 30% 0.72 87, 13 1,017 152 1,169 0.54 17, 83 149 728 877 Lab 987,326 30% 0.45 83, 17 369 76 444 0.35 16, 84 55 290 346 Manufacturing -436,213 15% 0.62 78,22 -211 -59 -270 0.62 36,64 -97 173 -270 Amenities 252,500 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,426,812 1,175 168 1,343 107 845 952 SOURCE: Atkins(2012). Table • • Generation for - • • Percentage vehicle trip reduction due AM Peak AM compared to PM Peak PM compared to to TDM program Hour 25%TDM Hour 25%TDM 25% 1,453 1,036 27% 1,411 -42 994 -42 30% 1,343 -110 952 -84 35% 1,223 -230 862 -174 40% 1,109 -344 775 -261 42% 1,063 -390 740 -296 45% 994 -459 688 -348 50% 879 -574 601 -435 55% 764 -689 514 -522 60% 649 -804 426 -610 65% 534 -919 339 -697 70% 419 -1,034 252 -784 SOURCE: Atkins(2012). However, in terms of reducing the project's traffic impacts, it would take at least a 42% reduction in vehicle trips before the TDM program would start to eliminate any of the project's significant impacts, as shown in Table 14. At that level of reduction, the impact at the intersection of East Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard in the PM peak hour would be eliminated. The project impacts at the other intersections would require even greater percentage reductions. Appendix A Synchro Worksheets HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 233 174 86 183 102 67 35 337 161 332 471 102 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1568 1288 2839 1541 1286 1438 2875 1286 1285 2688 1181 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1568 1288 2839 1541 1286 1438 2875 1286 1285 2688 1181 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 245 183 91 193 107 71 37 355 169 349 496 107 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 79 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 428 28 193 107 8 37 355 169 272 573 28 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 45 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 3 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 11% 11% 11% 13% 13% 13% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Split pt+ov Split Perm Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 6 6 67 2 2 Permitted Phases 8 7 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.3 30.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.7 16.7 27.7 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green,g(s) 30.3 30.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.7 16.7 27.7 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 475 390 312 170 141 240 480 356 334 699 307 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.07 c0.07 0.03 c0.12 0.13 0.21 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.07 0.62 0.63 0.06 0.15 0.74 0.47 0.81 0.82 0.09 Uniform Delay,d1 33.4 24.8 42.5 42.6 39.8 35.6 39.6 30.1 34.7 34.8 28.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.53 0.32 1.18 1.17 1.01 0.95 0.95 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 20.0 0.1 3.6 7.1 0.2 0.2 5.2 0.7 18.5 10.0 0.6 Delay(s) 53.4 24.9 26.9 29.8 13.1 42.1 51.5 31.1 51.4 43.1 28.6 Level of Service D C C C B D D C D D C Approach Delay(s) 48.4 25.1 44.8 43.9 Approach LOS D C D D r HCM Average Control Delay 42.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 108 403 127 1 35 114 0 0 394 52 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1442 1504 1542 3158 3064 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1442 1504 1542 3158 3064 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 119 443 140 1 38 125 0 0 433 57 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 119 288 296 0 0 163 0 0 480 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 14.5 52.6 52.6 14.5 20.9 Effective Green,g(s) 14.5 52.6 52.6 14.5 20.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.14 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 209 791 811 458 640 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.19 c0.19 0.05 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.57 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.75 Uniform Delay,d1 39.8 13.9 13.9 38.5 37.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.3 1.3 1.3 0.5 4.8 Delay(s) 44.1 15.2 15.2 31.0 41.9 Level of Service D B B C D Approach Delay(s) 44.1 15.2 31.0 41.9 Approach LOS D B C D r HCM Average Control Delay 29.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 50 172 106 263 212 177 180 42 334 142 657 50 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1441 3029 1417 1441 2983 1417 1597 2692 1570 3139 1379 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1441 3029 1417 1441 2983 1417 1597 2692 1570 3139 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 51 174 107 266 214 179 182 42 337 143 664 51 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 96 0 0 149 0 312 0 0 0 30 Lane Group Flow(vph) 46 179 11 157 323 30 182 67 0 143 664 21 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 3 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 16.8 16.8 16.8 15.6 7.3 49.6 41.3 41.3 Effective Green,g(s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 16.8 16.8 16.8 15.6 7.3 49.6 41.3 41.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.07 0.50 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 148 312 146 242 501 238 249 197 779 1296 570 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.06 0.01 c0.11 0.11 0.02 c0.11 0.02 0.09 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.57 0.08 0.65 0.64 0.13 0.73 0.34 0.18 0.51 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 41.6 42.8 40.5 38.8 38.8 35.4 40.2 44.1 14.0 21.9 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.06 2.28 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.78 0.79 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 1.6 0.1 4.3 2.1 0.1 9.1 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.1 Delay(s) 42.0 44.3 40.6 45.6 43.2 80.6 49.3 44.4 8.5 18.3 13.9 Level of Service D D D D D F D D A B B Approach Delay(s) 42.8 53.9 46.0 16.4 Approach LOS D D D B r HCM Average Control Delay 37.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 101 997 27 162 177 42 27 99 281 258 204 176 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1530 4377 3213 3217 1597 1681 2515 3045 3139 1379 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1530 4377 3213 3217 1597 1681 2515 3045 3139 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 106 1049 28 171 186 44 28 104 296 272 215 185 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 2 0 0 25 0 0 0 101 0 0 145 Lane Group Flow(vph) 106 1075 0 171 205 0 28 104 195 272 215 40 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 18% 18% 18% 9% 9% 9% 13% 13% 13% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 52.8 54.0 10.2 11.4 4.3 12.1 22.3 15.7 23.5 23.5 Effective Green,g(s) 52.8 54.0 10.2 11.4 4.3 12.1 22.3 15.7 23.5 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.49 0.09 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 734 2149 298 333 62 185 510 435 671 295 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.25 0.05 c0.06 0.02 c0.06 0.08 c0.09 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.45 0.56 0.38 0.63 0.32 0.13 Uniform Delay,d1 16.0 18.9 47.8 47.2 51.7 46.4 37.9 44.4 36.5 35.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.74 0.35 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.3 1.9 2.3 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 Delay(s) 16.4 19.7 30.9 27.1 53.6 48.8 38.1 37.0 26.9 12.2 Level of Service B B C C D D D D C B Approach Delay(s) 19.4 28.7 41.7 27.0 Approach LOS B C D C r HCM Average Control Delay 26.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 37 630 465 35 64 19 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1703 4893 4620 1656 1433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1703 4893 4617 1656 1433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 39 656 484 36 67 20 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 3 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow(vph) 39 656 517 0 67 2 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 11% 11% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.8 84.5 75.7 7.5 7.5 Effective Green,g(s) 4.8 84.5 75.7 7.5 7.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.84 0.76 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 82 4135 3497 124 107 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.13 0.11 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.16 0.15 0.54 0.01 Uniform Delay,d1 46.4 1.4 3.3 44.6 42.8 Progression Factor 0.95 2.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 0.1 0.1 2.6 0.0 Delay(s) 45.2 2.8 1.9 47.1 42.8 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay(s) 5.2 1.9 46.2 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 6.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.21 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB/Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 671 45 12 51 1 3 3 64 482 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3104 1284 1597 1429 1484 1597 1597 2515 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3104 1284 1597 1429 1484 1597 1597 2515 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 699 47 12 53 1 3 3 67 502 RTOR Reduction(vph) 1 26 0 0 3 0 0 0 132 Lane Group Flow(vph) 703 16 12 53 1 0 3 67 370 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Turn Type Perm custom Prot custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 5 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 20.5 20.5 1.0 20.0 1.0 1.0 20.0 40.5 Effective Green,g(s) 20.5 20.5 1.0 20.0 1.0 1.0 20.0 40.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.36 0.02 0.02 0.36 0.74 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1157 479 29 520 27 29 581 1852 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.01 0.04 c0.00 0.00 0.04 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.03 0.41 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.20 Uniform Delay,d1 14.0 11.0 26.7 11.6 26.5 26.6 11.6 2.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.45 4.43 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0.0 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.0 Delay(s) 14.6 11.0 30.2 12.0 26.7 23.9 17.2 9.9 Level of Service B B C B C C B A Approach Delay(s) 14.4 15.3 26.7 10.9 Approach LOS B B C B r HCM Average Control Delay 13.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 55.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 515 1046 155 15 214 12 59 74 94 22 45 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3303 3334 1626 3223 1573 1650 1445 1656 1549 1372 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3303 3324 1626 3223 1573 1650 1445 1656 1549 1372 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 542 1101 163 16 225 13 62 78 99 23 47 100 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 89 0 27 65 Lane Group Flow(vph) 542 1258 0 16 234 0 56 84 10 23 50 5 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 5 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 11% 11% 11% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.3 65.0 2.4 37.1 9.6 9.6 9.6 7.0 7.0 7.0 Effective Green,g(s) 30.3 65.0 2.4 37.1 9.6 9.6 9.6 7.0 7.0 7.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.65 0.02 0.37 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1001 2167 39 1196 151 158 139 116 108 96 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.38 c0.01 0.07 0.04 c0.05 0.01 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.58 0.41 0.20 0.37 0.53 0.07 0.20 0.46 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 29.1 9.8 48.1 21.3 42.4 43.1 41.1 43.9 44.7 43.4 Progression Factor 0.71 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.4 0.6 1.7 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.1 Delay(s) 21.1 6.9 50.6 21.7 42.9 44.8 41.2 44.2 45.8 43.5 Level of Service C A D C D D D D D D Approach Delay(s) 11.2 23.5 42.9 44.6 Approach LOS B C D D r HCM Average Control Delay 17.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 162 1213 61 52 266 56 47 71 286 255 111 8 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1703 4849 1626 4538 1656 2826 1687 3335 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1703 4849 1626 4538 1656 2826 1687 3335 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 165 1238 62 53 271 57 48 72 292 260 113 8 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 4 0 0 42 0 0 216 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 165 1296 0 53 286 0 48 148 0 260 115 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 11% 11% 11% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 35.5 44.4 6.6 15.5 15.8 9.7 23.3 17.2 Effective Green,g(s) 35.5 44.4 6.6 15.5 15.8 9.7 23.3 17.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.44 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.23 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 605 2153 107 703 262 274 393 574 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.27 0.03 c0.06 0.03 c0.05 c0.15 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.27 0.60 0.50 0.41 0.18 0.54 0.66 0.20 Uniform Delay,d1 23.0 21.1 45.1 38.1 36.5 43.0 34.8 35.5 Progression Factor 0.72 0.68 0.93 0.84 0.91 0.80 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 1.1 1.3 1.7 0.1 1.1 3.2 0.1 Delay(s) 16.6 15.5 43.0 33.8 33.4 35.4 38.0 35.6 Level of Service B B D C C D D D Approach Delay(s) 15.6 35.1 35.2 37.2 Approach LOS B D D D r HCM Average Control Delay 24.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 201 931 196 5 0 54 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 216 1001 211 5 0 58 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal(ft) 533 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 216 1146 108 vC1,stage 1 conf vol 213 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 933 vCu, unblocked vol 216 1146 108 tC,single(s) *4.2 6.9 *7.1 tC,2 stage(s) 5.9 tF(s) *2.3 3.5 *3.4 p0 queue free% 83 100 94 cM capacity(veh/h) 1302 274 900 Volume Total 216 501 501 141 76 58 Volume Left 216 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 5 58 cSH 1302 1700 1700 1700 1700 900 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.04 0.06 Queue Length 95th(ft) 15 0 0 0 0 5 Control Delay(s) 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 1.5 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A r Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21 : Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 672 22 15 306 224 764 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4854 1626 4673 1656 1448 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4854 1626 4673 1656 1448 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 679 22 15 309 226 772 RTOR Reduction(vph) 5 0 0 0 0 115 Lane Group Flow(vph) 696 0 15 309 226 657 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 11% 11% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 24.8 2.7 31.5 60.5 60.5 Effective Green,g(s) 24.8 2.7 31.5 60.5 60.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.03 0.32 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1204 44 1472 1002 876 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.01 0.07 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.45 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.34 0.21 0.23 0.75 Uniform Delay,d1 33.0 47.8 25.1 9.0 14.3 Progression Factor 0.77 0.42 0.54 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.0 1.7 0.3 0.0 3.2 Delay(s) 27.4 21.7 13.8 9.1 17.5 Level of Service C C B A B Approach Delay(s) 27.4 14.1 15.6 Approach LOS C B B r HCM Average Control Delay 19.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Grandview Dr. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 394 530 129 33 49 62 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 424 570 139 35 53 67 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal(ft) 1197 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 174 1289 87 vC1,stage 1 conf vol 156 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 1132 vCu, unblocked vol 174 1289 87 tC,single(s) *4.2 *7.0 *7.1 tC,2 stage(s) 6.0 tF(s) *2.3 *3.6 *3.4 p0 queue free% 69 69 93 cM capacity(veh/h) 1350 169 929 Volume Total 424 285 285 92 82 119 Volume Left 424 0 0 0 0 53 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 35 67 cSH 1350 1700 1700 1700 1700 311 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.38 Queue Length 95th(ft) 34 0 0 0 0 44 Control Delay(s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay(s) 3.8 0.0 23.6 Approach LOS C r Average Delay 5.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 22 430 86 109 138 5 62 5 78 6 7 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate(vph) 24 478 96 121 153 6 69 6 87 7 8 12 Volume Total(vph) 263 334 198 82 161 27 Volume Left(vph) 24 0 121 0 69 7 Volume Right(vph) 0 96 0 6 87 12 Hadj(s) 0.20 -0.05 0.46 0.11 -0.08 -0.07 Departure Headway(s) 5.6 5.4 6.3 5.9 5.8 6.1 Degree Utilization,x 0.41 0.50 0.34 0.13 0.26 0.05 Capacity(veh/h) 615 652 554 583 578 516 Control Delay(s) 11.4 12.5 11.3 8.6 10.8 9.4 Approach Delay(s) 12.0 10.5 10.8 9.4 Approach LOS B B B A r Delay 11.4 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: I nt 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 18 447 179 188 763 126 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3267 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3267 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 20 497 199 209 848 140 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 175 0 0 43 Lane Group Flow(vph) 20 497 233 0 848 97 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 2.0 22.5 16.5 69.5 69.5 Effective Green,g(s) 2.0 22.5 16.5 69.5 69.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.22 0.16 0.70 0.70 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 35 796 539 1230 1100 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 0.07 c0.48 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.57 0.62 0.43 0.69 0.09 Uniform Delay,d1 48.6 34.9 37.5 8.9 5.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 20.6 1.5 0.6 3.2 0.2 Delay(s) 69.1 36.5 38.1 12.1 5.1 Level of Service E D D B A Approach Delay(s) 37.7 38.1 11.1 Approach LOS D D B r HCM Average Control Delay 24.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing_AM_Forbes Blvd.&Gull Dr. 4/2/2012 Baseline Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 0 14 556 1062 0 0 Sign Control Yield Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 15 591 1130 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1156 861 1721 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1156 861 1721 tC,single(s) 6.9 *7.1 4.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 *3.4 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 95 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 185 283 351 Volume Total 15 394 1327 Volume Left 0 0 0 Volume Right 15 0 1130 cSH 283 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.23 0.78 Queue Length 95th(ft) 4 0 0 Control Delay(s) 18.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay(s) 18.4 0.0 Approach LOS C r Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 1305 198 30 242 53 17 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow(prot) 3324 1671 3343 1649 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow(perm) 3324 1671 3343 1649 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 1374 208 32 255 56 18 RTOR Reduction(vph) 6 0 0 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 1576 0 32 255 62 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 8% 8% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 68.5 14.9 72.5 14.1 Effective Green,g(s) 68.5 14.9 72.5 14.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.14 0.66 0.13 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2070 226 2203 211 v/s Ratio Prot c0.47 c0.02 0.08 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.76 0.14 0.12 0.29 Uniform Delay,d1 14.9 41.9 6.9 43.4 Progression Factor 0.72 1.43 0.40 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 Delay(s) 13.0 59.9 2.8 43.7 Level of Service B E A D Approach Delay(s) 13.0 9.2 43.7 Approach LOS B A D r HCM Average Control Delay 13.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 743 296 58 302 243 0 104 910 355 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4663 1671 4803 3014 1507 1435 3720 1509 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4663 1671 4803 3014 1507 1435 3720 1509 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 751 299 59 305 245 0 105 919 359 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 1050 0 59 305 164 81 12 919 359 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 6 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm custom custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 37.5 6.2 91.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 39.5 39.5 Effective Green,g(s) 37.5 6.2 87.7 10.8 10.8 10.8 39.5 39.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.06 0.80 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1590 94 3829 296 148 141 1336 542 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.04 0.06 c0.05 0.05 c0.25 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.63 0.08 0.55 0.55 0.09 0.69 0.66 Uniform Delay,d1 30.8 50.8 2.4 47.3 47.3 45.1 30.0 29.6 Progression Factor 0.79 1.04 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.0 9.1 0.0 1.3 2.2 0.1 1.2 2.4 Delay(s) 26.3 61.6 1.5 48.6 49.5 45.2 31.2 32.0 Level of Service C E A D D D C C Approach Delay(s) 26.3 11.3 47.8 Approach LOS C B D r HCM Average Control Delay 29.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 3 548 647 11 139 0 118 3 18 0 0 1 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1703 1792 1474 1671 3343 1687 1526 1536 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1703 1792 1474 1671 3343 1345 1526 1536 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow(vph) 3 583 688 12 148 0 126 3 19 0 0 1 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 176 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 3 583 512 12 148 0 126 6 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 9.0 81.8 81.8 1.4 74.2 14.8 14.8 14.8 Effective Green,g(s) 9.0 81.8 81.8 1.4 74.2 14.8 14.8 14.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.74 0.74 0.01 0.67 0.13 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 139 1333 1096 21 2255 181 205 207 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.33 c0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.35 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.44 0.47 0.57 0.07 0.70 0.03 0.00 Uniform Delay,d1 46.5 5.4 5.5 54.0 6.1 45.5 41.3 41.2 Progression Factor 0.88 1.04 7.44 1.02 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 1.0 1.4 21.2 0.1 9.0 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 41.0 6.6 42.5 76.0 6.1 54.5 41.4 41.2 Level of Service D A D E A D D D Approach Delay(s) 26.1 11.3 52.5 41.2 Approach LOS C B D D r HCM Average Control Delay 27.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 498 626 412 137 107 301 274 38 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 2968 2861 1215 3213 3312 1463 1517 1539 2515 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 2968 2861 1215 3213 3312 1463 1517 1539 2515 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 508 639 420 140 109 307 280 39 421 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 8 143 0 0 153 0 0 115 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 508 732 176 140 109 154 160 159 306 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 11 8 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 18% 18% 18% 9% 9% 9% 13% 13% 13% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 23.9 60.7 60.7 18.5 55.3 55.3 18.3 18.3 40.3 Effective Green,g(s) 23.9 60.7 60.7 18.5 55.3 55.3 18.3 18.3 36.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.55 0.55 0.17 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.17 0.33 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 645 1579 670 540 1665 735 252 256 841 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.26 0.04 0.03 c0.11 0.10 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.46 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.21 0.63 0.62 0.36 Uniform Delay,d1 40.7 14.8 12.9 39.8 14.1 15.2 42.7 42.6 27.7 Progression Factor 0.89 0.59 0.56 1.35 1.92 6.89 0.71 0.71 0.78 Incremental Delay,d2 5.6 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.6 3.2 2.8 0.1 Delay(s) 41.7 9.7 8.1 53.7 27.1 105.4 33.7 33.3 21.7 Level of Service D A A D C F C C C Approach Delay(s) 19.8 77.0 26.8 0.0 Approach LOS B E C A r HCM Average Control Delay 32.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Oyster Point Blvd. & Veterans Blvd. (Base Option) II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 281 1476 0 3 286 15 0 0 8 19 0 74 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3303 3406 1671 3312 1509 1687 1419 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3303 3406 1671 3312 1509 1336 1419 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 296 1554 0 3 301 16 0 0 8 20 0 78 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 74 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 296 1554 0 3 316 0 0 0 0 20 4 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 13 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 2 11 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 14.3 90.3 1.6 77.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Effective Green,g(s) 14.3 90.3 1.6 77.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.82 0.01 0.71 0.05 0.05 0.05 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 429 2796 24 2336 77 68 72 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.46 0.00 c0.10 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.56 0.12 0.14 0.01 0.29 0.06 Uniform Delay,d1 45.7 3.2 53.5 5.3 49.6 50.3 49.7 Progression Factor 1.01 0.82 1.01 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.6 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 Delay(s) 49.6 3.4 54.9 4.7 49.6 51.2 49.8 Level of Service D A D A D D D Approach Delay(s) 10.8 5.2 49.6 50.1 Approach LOS B A D D r HCM Average Control Delay 11.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 78 180 390 24 95 7 423 319 332 6 129 134 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1671 1560 1390 1671 1738 3213 3016 1687 1776 1442 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1671 1560 1390 1671 1738 3213 3016 1687 1776 1442 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 80 184 398 24 97 7 432 326 339 6 132 137 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 24 216 0 2 0 0 147 0 0 0 121 Lane Group Flow(vph) 80 279 63 24 102 0 432 518 0 6 132 16 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 8 3 6 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 5 2 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Split Split Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.1 22.7 22.7 2.9 17.5 46.6 46.6 11.8 11.8 11.8 Effective Green,g(s) 8.1 22.7 22.7 2.9 17.5 46.6 46.6 11.8 11.8 11.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 135 354 316 48 304 1497 1405 199 210 170 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 0.01 c0.06 0.13 c0.17 0.00 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.79 0.20 0.50 0.33 0.29 0.37 0.03 0.63 0.10 Uniform Delay,d1 44.4 36.4 31.3 47.8 36.1 16.5 17.2 39.0 42.0 39.3 Progression Factor 1.03 1.02 1.97 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.74 1.14 1.06 2.04 Incremental Delay,d2 4.3 9.7 0.1 3.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 4.1 0.1 Delay(s) 49.8 46.8 61.7 50.8 36.4 13.9 13.2 44.5 48.5 80.3 Level of Service D D E D D B B D D F Approach Delay(s) 53.4 39.1 13.5 64.3 Approach LOS D D B E r HCM Average Control Delay 33.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 18 11 11 154 249 15 35 392 104 803 26 366 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1706 1461 1656 3269 1687 3374 1470 3221 1361 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1706 1461 1656 3269 1687 3374 1470 3221 1361 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 18 11 11 156 252 15 35 396 105 811 26 370 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 68 3 0 212 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 29 0 156 264 0 35 396 37 871 0 121 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 3 2 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.3 4.3 14.7 46.1 4.7 35.6 35.6 31.4 31.4 Effective Green,g(s) 4.3 4.3 14.7 46.1 4.7 35.6 35.6 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.46 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 73 63 243 1507 79 1201 523 1011 427 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.09 0.08 0.02 c0.12 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.01 0.64 0.18 0.44 0.33 0.07 0.86 0.28 Uniform Delay,d1 46.6 45.8 40.2 15.8 46.4 23.5 21.3 32.2 25.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.33 1.05 1.09 1.82 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.3 0.0 5.4 0.2 1.3 0.6 0.2 7.4 0.1 Delay(s) 47.9 45.8 41.1 5.5 50.1 26.2 39.0 39.6 26.0 Level of Service D D D A D C D D C Approach Delay(s) 47.3 18.6 30.3 35.9 Approach LOS D B C D r HCM Average Control Delay 31.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing A.M. Peak Synchro 7 Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 165 49 76 574 177 186 45 333 110 160 306 145 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1568 1258 2814 1527 1279 1518 3036 1358 1285 2699 1180 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1568 1258 2814 1527 1279 1518 3036 1358 1285 2699 1180 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 174 52 80 604 186 196 47 351 116 168 322 153 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 65 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 116 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 226 15 604 186 52 47 351 116 151 339 37 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 45 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 3 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 12% 12% 12% 7% 7% 7% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Split pt+ov Split Perm Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 6 6 67 2 2 Permitted Phases 8 7 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 18.4 18.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 15.2 15.2 41.6 24.0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green,g(s) 18.4 18.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 15.2 15.2 41.6 24.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.15 0.42 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 289 231 743 403 338 231 461 565 308 648 283 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.21 0.12 0.03 c0.12 0.09 0.12 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.06 0.81 0.46 0.15 0.20 0.76 0.21 0.49 0.52 0.13 Uniform Delay,d1 38.9 33.7 34.5 30.8 28.2 37.1 40.7 18.6 32.7 33.0 29.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.49 0.55 0.94 0.96 0.75 1.00 0.99 1.45 Incremental Delay,d2 12.5 0.1 6.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 6.8 0.1 5.1 2.8 0.9 Delay(s) 51.3 33.8 25.5 15.9 15.7 35.1 45.9 14.2 37.8 35.7 44.1 Level of Service D C C B B D D B D D D Approach Delay(s) 46.7 21.7 37.7 38.2 Approach LOS D C D D r HCM Average Control Delay 32.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 89 263 286 1 112 222 0 0 278 42 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1481 1545 1619 3318 3061 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1481 1545 1619 3318 3061 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 98 289 314 1 123 244 0 0 305 46 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 98 260 344 0 0 367 0 0 323 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 7% 7% 7% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 10.7 16.7 16.7 10.7 10.6 Effective Green,g(s) 10.7 16.7 16.7 10.7 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 317 516 541 710 649 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.17 c0.21 c0.11 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.31 0.50 0.64 0.52 0.50 Uniform Delay,d1 16.5 13.3 14.1 17.4 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.8 3.5 5.6 0.8 0.6 Delay(s) 17.3 16.8 19.7 16.0 18.0 Level of Service B B B B B Approach Delay(s) 17.3 18.5 16.0 18.0 Approach LOS B B B B r HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 50.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 121 134 200 632 178 389 78 29 191 152 1004 76 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1480 3081 1455 1480 3019 1455 1687 2886 1570 3139 1379 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1480 3081 1455 1480 3019 1455 1687 2886 1570 3139 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 122 135 202 638 180 393 79 29 193 154 1014 77 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 180 0 0 225 0 132 0 0 0 45 Lane Group Flow(vph) 83 174 22 319 499 168 79 90 0 154 1014 32 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 3 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 7% 7% 7% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 9.6 9.6 9.6 24.7 24.7 24.7 7.6 31.6 18.1 42.1 42.1 Effective Green,g(s) 9.6 9.6 9.6 24.7 24.7 24.7 7.6 31.6 18.1 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.32 0.18 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 142 296 140 366 746 359 128 912 284 1322 581 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.06 0.02 c0.22 0.17 0.12 c0.05 0.03 0.10 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.59 0.16 0.87 0.67 0.47 0.62 0.10 0.54 0.77 0.06 Uniform Delay,d1 43.3 43.3 41.5 36.1 34.0 32.1 44.8 24.1 37.2 24.8 17.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.44 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.69 0.51 Incremental Delay,d2 3.9 1.9 0.2 16.7 1.5 0.3 6.1 0.0 7.0 4.2 0.2 Delay(s) 47.2 45.2 41.7 51.5 34.4 46.6 50.9 24.2 43.8 21.3 8.9 Level of Service D D D D C D D C D C A Approach Delay(s) 44.0 42.9 31.2 23.3 Approach LOS D D C C r HCM Average Control Delay 34.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Oyster Point Blvd. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 63 301 22 229 720 64 41 120 127 158 337 416 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1626 4621 3127 3184 3273 1776 2656 3045 3139 1379 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1626 4621 3127 3184 3273 1776 2656 3045 3139 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 66 317 23 241 758 67 43 126 134 166 355 438 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 91 0 0 238 Lane Group Flow(vph) 66 334 0 241 820 0 43 126 43 166 355 200 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 7% 7% 7% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.4 51.7 12.0 55.3 4.0 18.6 35.6 9.7 24.3 24.3 Effective Green,g(s) 8.4 51.7 12.0 55.3 4.0 18.6 35.6 9.7 24.3 24.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.47 0.11 0.50 0.04 0.17 0.32 0.09 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 124 2172 341 1601 119 300 860 269 693 305 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.07 c0.08 c0.26 0.01 0.07 0.02 c0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.15 0.71 0.51 0.36 0.42 0.05 0.62 0.51 0.65 Uniform Delay,d1 48.9 16.7 47.3 18.3 51.8 40.9 25.6 48.4 37.6 39.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.62 0.38 Incremental Delay,d2 2.2 0.2 4.9 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 2.8 0.3 3.7 Delay(s) 51.1 16.8 60.9 10.9 52.4 41.2 25.6 49.6 23.6 18.6 Level of Service D B E B D D C D C B Approach Delay(s) 22.4 22.2 35.9 25.8 Approach LOS C C D C r HCM Average Control Delay 25.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 29 290 1362 40 12 67 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 4940 4608 1656 1422 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 4940 4608 1656 1422 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 30 302 1419 42 12 70 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 1 0 0 66 Lane Group Flow(vph) 30 302 1460 0 12 4 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 12% 12% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.4 86.5 78.1 5.5 5.5 Effective Green,g(s) 4.4 86.5 78.1 5.5 5.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.86 0.78 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 76 4273 3599 91 78 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.06 c0.32 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.07 0.41 0.13 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 46.5 1.0 3.5 45.0 44.8 Progression Factor 1.25 0.71 0.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Delay(s) 59.5 0.7 0.6 45.2 44.9 Level of Service E A A D D Approach Delay(s) 6.0 0.6 44.9 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 3.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB/Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 481 13 35 134 2 2 5 39 1226 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3162 1307 1626 1455 1569 1626 1626 2561 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3162 1307 1626 1455 1569 1626 1626 2561 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 501 14 36 140 2 2 5 41 1277 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 229 Lane Group Flow(vph) 502 3 36 140 2 0 5 41 1048 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Perm custom Prot custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 5 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 24.4 24.4 6.1 70.8 1.1 1.2 65.9 93.3 Effective Green,g(s) 24.4 24.4 6.1 70.8 1.1 1.2 65.9 90.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.64 0.01 0.01 0.60 0.82 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 701 290 90 936 16 18 974 2102 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.02 0.10 c0.00 0.00 0.03 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.01 0.40 0.15 0.13 0.28 0.04 0.50 Uniform Delay,d1 39.6 33.4 50.2 7.7 54.0 54.0 9.1 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.36 0.62 22.62 Incremental Delay,d2 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.1 1.3 2.5 0.1 0.1 Delay(s) 42.5 33.4 51.2 7.8 55.3 75.9 5.7 67.6 Level of Service D C D A E E A E Approach Delay(s) 42.3 16.7 55.3 65.7 Approach LOS D B E E r HCM Average Control Delay 55.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 178 197 63 95 819 19 179 36 28 4 131 342 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3335 3334 1612 3223 1573 1650 1445 1656 1549 1372 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3324 1612 3223 1573 1650 1445 1656 1549 1372 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 187 207 66 100 862 20 188 38 29 4 138 360 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 26 0 34 195 Lane Group Flow(vph) 187 250 0 100 881 0 113 113 3 4 226 43 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 5 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 12% 12% 12% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 11.3 44.5 10.0 43.2 11.6 11.6 11.6 17.9 17.9 17.9 Effective Green,g(s) 11.3 44.5 10.0 43.2 11.6 11.6 11.6 17.9 17.9 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.44 0.10 0.43 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 377 1484 161 1392 182 191 168 296 277 246 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.07 0.06 c0.27 c0.07 0.07 0.00 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.17 0.62 0.63 0.62 0.59 0.02 0.01 0.82 0.17 Uniform Delay,d1 41.7 16.6 43.2 22.2 42.1 42.0 39.2 33.8 39.5 34.8 Progression Factor 0.93 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 0.2 5.3 2.2 4.7 3.2 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.1 Delay(s) 39.7 13.8 48.4 24.4 46.8 45.2 39.2 33.8 55.5 34.9 Level of Service D B D C D D D C E C Approach Delay(s) 24.3 26.8 45.2 45.5 Approach LOS C C D D r HCM Average Control Delay 32.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 93 302 74 159 1082 95 66 45 54 93 340 7 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 4757 1612 4569 1703 3068 1752 3493 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 4757 1612 4569 1703 3068 1752 3493 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 95 308 76 162 1104 97 67 46 55 95 347 7 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 31 0 0 8 0 0 48 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 95 353 0 162 1193 0 67 53 0 95 352 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 12% 12% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 13.8 47.8 14.3 48.3 7.4 13.2 8.7 14.5 Effective Green,g(s) 13.8 47.8 14.3 48.3 7.4 13.2 8.7 14.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.48 0.14 0.48 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 237 2274 231 2207 126 405 152 506 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.07 c0.10 c0.26 c0.04 0.02 0.05 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.40 0.16 0.70 0.54 0.53 0.13 0.62 0.70 Uniform Delay,d1 39.3 14.7 40.8 18.1 44.6 38.3 44.1 40.7 Progression Factor 0.76 0.60 0.88 0.64 0.89 0.94 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 0.1 6.4 0.8 2.1 0.1 5.7 3.4 Delay(s) 30.3 8.9 42.3 12.4 41.7 35.9 49.7 44.0 Level of Service C A D B D D D D Approach Delay(s) 13.2 15.9 38.2 45.2 Approach LOS B B D D r HCM Average Control Delay 22.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 62 143 905 26 0 146 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 67 154 973 28 0 157 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal(ft) 533 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1001 1197 501 vC1,stage 1 conf vol 987 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 210 vCu, unblocked vol 1001 1197 501 tC,single(s) *4.2 7.0 *7.1 tC,2 stage(s) 6.0 tF(s) *2.2 3.6 *3.4 p0 queue free% 90 100 68 cM capacity(veh/h) 680 290 495 Volume Total 67 77 77 649 352 157 Volume Left 67 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 28 157 cSH 680 1700 1700 1700 1700 495 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.38 0.21 0.32 Queue Length 95th(ft) 8 0 0 0 0 34 Control Delay(s) 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay(s) 3.3 0.0 15.6 Approach LOS C r Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21 : Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 257 45 43 1112 290 212 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4762 1612 4631 1656 1448 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4762 1612 4631 1656 1448 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 260 45 43 1123 293 214 RTOR Reduction(vph) 16 0 0 0 0 165 Lane Group Flow(vph) 289 0 43 1123 293 49 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 12% 12% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 60.2 5.1 69.3 22.7 22.7 Effective Green,g(s) 60.2 5.1 69.3 22.7 22.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.05 0.69 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2867 82 3209 376 329 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.03 c0.24 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.52 0.35 0.78 0.15 Uniform Delay,d1 8.4 46.3 6.2 36.3 30.9 Progression Factor 0.64 1.16 0.36 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 2.4 0.3 9.0 0.1 Delay(s) 5.5 56.3 2.5 45.3 31.0 Level of Service A E A D C Approach Delay(s) 5.5 4.5 39.3 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 13.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Grandview Dr. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 40 106 516 32 11 374 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 44 116 567 35 12 411 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal(ft) 1197 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 602 731 301 vC1,stage 1 conf vol 585 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 146 vCu, unblocked vol 602 731 301 tC,single(s) *4.2 *7.0 *7.1 tC,2 stage(s) 6.0 tF(s) *2.2 *3.6 *3.4 p0 queue free% 95 97 39 cM capacity(veh/h) 969 472 672 Volume Total 44 58 58 378 224 423 Volume Left 44 0 0 0 0 12 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 35 411 cSH 969 1700 1700 1700 1700 664 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.22 0.13 0.64 Queue Length 95th(ft) 4 0 0 0 0 114 Control Delay(s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay(s) 2.4 0.0 19.5 Approach LOS C r Average Delay 7.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 13 120 28 59 413 5 67 8 65 5 13 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 14 132 31 65 454 5 74 9 71 5 14 30 Volume Total(vph) 80 97 292 232 154 49 Volume Left(vph) 14 0 65 0 74 5 Volume Right(vph) 0 31 0 5 71 30 Hadj(s) 0.24 -0.07 0.26 0.14 -0.03 -0.18 Departure Headway(s) 6.0 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 Degree Utilization,x 0.13 0.15 0.45 0.35 0.24 0.08 Capacity(veh/h) 568 604 627 643 605 577 Control Delay(s) 8.7 8.5 11.9 10.2 10.2 9.1 Approach Delay(s) 8.6 11.1 10.2 9.1 Approach LOS A B B A r Delay 10.4 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: I nt 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 102 134 408 602 86 74 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3223 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3223 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow(vph) 113 149 453 669 92 80 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 353 0 0 45 Lane Group Flow(vph) 113 149 769 0 92 35 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 11.7 48.5 32.8 43.5 43.5 Effective Green,g(s) 11.7 48.5 32.8 43.5 43.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.48 0.33 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 207 1716 1057 770 689 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.04 c0.24 c0.05 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.55 0.09 0.73 0.12 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 41.6 13.8 29.7 16.8 16.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.9 0.0 2.5 0.3 0.1 Delay(s) 44.6 13.9 32.2 17.2 16.5 Level of Service D B C B B Approach Delay(s) 27.1 32.2 16.8 Approach LOS C C B r HCM Average Control Delay 29.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing-PM-Forbes Blvd.&Gull Dr. 4/2/2012 Baseline Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 0 9 65 471 0 0 Sign Control Yield Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 10 71 512 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 327 291 583 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 327 291 583 tC,single(s) 7.0 *7.1 4.3 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.6 *3.4 2.3 p0 queue free% 100 99 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 624 682 941 Volume Total 10 47 536 Volume Left 0 0 0 Volume Right 10 0 512 cSH 682 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.32 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 10.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay(s) 10.4 0.0 Approach LOS B r Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 274 39 13 1227 282 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow(prot) 3394 1671 3343 1701 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow(perm) 3394 1671 3343 1701 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 288 41 14 1292 297 11 RTOR Reduction(vph) 10 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 319 0 14 1292 306 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 8% 8% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 36.5 36.2 67.9 23.8 Effective Green,g(s) 36.5 36.2 67.9 23.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.62 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1137 555 2082 371 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.01 c0.39 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.28 0.03 0.62 0.83 Uniform Delay,d1 26.6 24.5 12.6 40.6 Progression Factor 1.00 2.01 1.25 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0.0 0.4 13.3 Delay(s) 27.2 49.3 16.2 53.9 Level of Service C D B D Approach Delay(s) 27.2 16.5 53.9 Approach LOS C B D r HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 109.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 223 46 48 1678 951 0 75 127 27 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4848 1671 4803 3099 1550 1483 3755 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4848 1671 4803 3099 1550 1483 3755 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 225 46 48 1695 961 0 76 128 27 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 271 0 48 1695 644 317 19 128 27 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 6 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 8% 8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm custom custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 51.1 6.7 62.3 28.0 28.0 28.0 8.2 8.2 Effective Green,g(s) 51.1 6.7 62.3 28.0 28.0 28.0 8.2 8.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.06 0.57 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2252 102 2720 789 395 377 280 114 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.03 c0.35 c0.21 0.20 c0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.47 0.62 0.82 0.80 0.05 0.46 0.24 Uniform Delay,d1 16.7 49.9 16.0 38.6 38.4 31.0 48.8 48.0 Progression Factor 0.80 1.10 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 1.2 1.0 6.2 10.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 Delay(s) 13.4 56.3 13.6 44.8 49.0 31.0 49.2 48.3 Level of Service B E B D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 13.4 14.8 45.1 Approach LOS B B D r HCM Average Control Delay 26.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 1 112 173 16 473 1 630 0 19 2 0 2 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 1827 1498 1671 3341 1703 1503 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 1827 1498 1671 3341 1354 1503 1614 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow(vph) 1 119 184 17 503 1 670 0 20 2 0 2 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 1 119 59 17 504 0 670 11 0 0 3 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 1.0 35.2 35.2 2.8 37.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Effective Green,g(s) 1.0 35.2 35.2 2.8 37.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.34 0.55 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 16 585 479 43 1124 739 820 880 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.07 c0.01 c0.15 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.49 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.20 0.12 0.40 0.45 0.91 0.01 0.00 Uniform Delay,d1 54.0 27.2 26.5 52.8 28.5 22.5 11.4 11.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0.8 0.5 2.2 1.3 14.4 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 54.6 28.0 27.0 54.9 29.8 36.9 11.4 11.4 Level of Service D C C D C D B B Approach Delay(s) 27.5 30.6 36.2 11.4 Approach LOS C C D B r HCM Average Control Delay 32.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 178 140 268 1002 625 1002 388 100 129 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 *1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3155 2846 1285 3223 3223 1675 1545 1579 2561 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3155 2846 1285 3223 3223 1675 1545 1579 2561 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 182 143 273 1022 638 1022 396 102 132 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 107 106 0 0 201 0 0 39 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 182 173 30 1022 638 821 246 252 93 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 11 8 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 14.5 24.0 24.0 51.9 61.4 61.4 21.6 21.6 77.5 Effective Green,g(s) 14.5 24.0 24.0 51.9 61.4 61.4 21.6 21.6 77.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.56 0.56 0.20 0.20 0.70 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 416 621 280 1521 1799 935 303 310 1804 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.06 0.32 0.20 0.16 c0.16 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.49 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.28 0.11 0.67 0.35 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 44.0 35.8 34.4 22.5 13.4 21.0 42.3 42.3 5.0 Progression Factor 0.74 0.68 1.27 0.94 0.74 0.93 0.49 0.49 1.06 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 1.1 0.7 1.9 0.4 9.2 13.5 13.3 0.0 Delay(s) 33.1 25.6 44.3 23.1 10.3 28.8 34.4 34.2 5.3 Level of Service C C D C B C C C A Approach Delay(s) 32.1 22.2 28.2 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A r HCM Average Control Delay 24.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Oyster Point Blvd. & Veterans Blvd. (Base Option) II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 71 354 0 5 1510 17 0 0 0 7 0 216 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3367 3471 1671 3336 1703 1471 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3367 3471 1671 3336 1357 1471 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 75 373 0 5 1589 18 0 0 0 7 0 227 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 75 373 0 5 1606 0 0 0 0 7 98 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 13 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 2 11 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 6.1 84.3 1.2 79.4 12.0 12.0 Effective Green,g(s) 6.1 84.3 1.2 79.4 12.0 12.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.77 0.01 0.72 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 187 2660 18 2408 148 160 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.11 0.00 c0.48 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.14 0.28 0.67 0.05 0.61 Uniform Delay,d1 50.2 3.4 54.0 8.2 43.9 46.8 Progression Factor 0.99 1.04 1.14 0.78 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 0.1 2.6 1.3 0.0 4.8 Delay(s) 50.3 3.6 64.3 7.7 43.9 51.6 Level of Service D A E A D D Approach Delay(s) 11.4 7.8 0.0 51.3 Approach LOS B A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 13.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 34 101 342 103 350 3 494 124 61 7 200 355 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 1571 1441 1736 1824 3303 3208 1752 1845 1501 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 1571 1441 1736 1824 3303 3208 1752 1845 1501 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 35 103 349 105 357 3 504 127 62 7 204 362 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 49 182 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 229 Lane Group Flow(vph) 35 183 39 105 360 0 504 152 0 7 204 133 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 8 3 6 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 5 2 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Split Split Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.4 17.5 17.5 11.2 24.3 39.8 39.8 15.5 15.5 15.5 Effective Green,g(s) 4.4 17.5 17.5 11.2 24.3 39.8 39.8 15.5 15.5 15.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 76 275 252 194 443 1315 1277 272 286 233 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.12 0.06 c0.20 c0.15 0.05 0.00 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.67 0.15 0.54 0.81 0.38 0.12 0.03 0.71 0.57 Uniform Delay,d1 46.6 38.5 35.0 42.0 35.7 21.4 19.0 35.8 40.1 39.2 Progression Factor 0.91 1.10 2.46 1.00 1.00 1.28 1.41 0.68 0.82 1.14 Incremental Delay,d2 1.5 4.5 0.1 1.7 10.3 0.8 0.2 0.0 6.4 2.0 Delay(s) 44.1 46.8 86.0 43.6 46.0 28.2 27.1 24.4 39.2 46.8 Level of Service D D F D D C C C D D Approach Delay(s) 64.3 45.5 27.9 43.8 Approach LOS E D C D r HCM Average Control Delay 43.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 16 8 12 315 289 15 16 476 153 358 13 188 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1768 1517 1703 3367 1752 3505 1528 3342 1383 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1768 1517 1703 3367 1752 3505 1528 3342 1383 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 16 8 12 318 292 15 16 481 155 362 13 190 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 12 0 2 0 0 0 88 4 0 144 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 24 0 318 305 0 16 481 67 390 0 27 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 3 2 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.1 4.1 23.9 62.1 4.4 42.1 42.1 15.9 15.9 Effective Green,g(s) 4.1 4.1 23.9 62.1 4.4 42.1 42.1 15.9 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.24 0.62 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 72 62 407 2091 77 1476 643 531 220 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.19 0.09 0.01 c0.14 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.01 0.78 0.15 0.21 0.33 0.10 0.73 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 46.6 46.0 35.6 7.9 46.1 19.4 17.5 40.0 36.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.39 0.81 0.68 0.56 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 0.0 9.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 4.5 0.1 Delay(s) 47.6 46.0 39.7 11.1 38.0 13.7 10.2 44.5 36.2 Level of Service D D D B D B B D D Approach Delay(s) 47.1 25.6 13.5 42.0 Approach LOS D C B D r HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 233 250 86 228 113 67 35 337 161 548 471 102 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1575 1288 2839 1541 1286 1438 2875 1286 1285 2688 1181 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1575 1288 2839 1541 1286 1438 2875 1286 1285 2688 1181 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 245 263 91 240 119 71 37 355 169 577 496 107 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 64 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 79 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 508 27 240 119 8 37 355 169 352 721 28 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 45 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 3 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 11% 11% 11% 13% 13% 13% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Split pt+ov Split Perm Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 6 6 67 2 2 Permitted Phases 8 7 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 29.3 29.3 11.6 11.6 11.6 16.7 16.7 28.3 26.4 26.4 26.4 Effective Green,g(s) 29.3 29.3 11.6 11.6 11.6 16.7 16.7 28.3 26.4 26.4 26.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 461 377 329 179 149 240 480 364 339 710 312 v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 c0.08 0.08 0.03 c0.12 0.13 c0.27 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.07 0.73 0.66 0.06 0.15 0.74 0.46 1.04 1.02 0.09 Uniform Delay,d1 35.4 25.5 42.7 42.3 39.3 35.6 39.6 29.6 36.8 36.8 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.43 0.28 1.18 1.18 1.02 0.97 0.97 1.06 Incremental Delay,d2 72.6 0.1 7.8 8.9 0.2 0.2 5.2 0.6 57.7 36.7 0.5 Delay(s) 107.9 25.6 26.5 27.0 11.3 42.2 51.9 30.8 93.3 72.5 29.9 Level of Service F C C C B D D C F E C Approach Delay(s) 95.4 24.1 44.9 74.8 Approach LOS F C D E r HCM Average Control Delay 65.4 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 108 403 127 1 35 114 0 0 438 52 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1442 1504 1542 3158 3064 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1442 1504 1542 3158 3064 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 119 443 140 1 38 125 0 0 481 57 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 119 288 296 0 0 163 0 0 529 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 14.5 50.6 50.6 14.5 22.9 Effective Green,g(s) 14.5 50.6 50.6 14.5 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.51 0.51 0.14 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 209 761 780 458 702 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.19 c0.19 0.05 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.57 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.75 Uniform Delay,d1 39.8 15.1 15.1 38.5 35.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.3 1.4 1.4 0.4 4.6 Delay(s) 44.1 16.5 16.5 33.8 40.5 Level of Service D B B C D Approach Delay(s) 44.1 16.5 33.8 40.5 Approach LOS D B C D r HCM Average Control Delay 30.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 50 172 106 263 212 177 180 42 334 142 702 50 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1441 3029 1417 1441 2983 1417 1597 2692 1570 3139 1379 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1441 3029 1417 1441 2983 1417 1597 2692 1570 3139 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 51 174 107 266 214 179 182 42 337 143 709 51 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 96 0 0 149 0 312 0 0 0 30 Lane Group Flow(vph) 46 179 11 157 323 30 182 67 0 143 709 21 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 3 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 16.8 16.8 16.8 15.6 7.3 49.6 41.3 41.3 Effective Green,g(s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 16.8 16.8 16.8 15.6 7.3 49.6 39.3 41.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.07 0.50 0.39 0.41 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 148 312 146 242 501 238 249 197 779 1234 570 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.06 0.01 c0.11 0.11 0.02 c0.11 0.02 0.09 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.57 0.08 0.65 0.64 0.13 0.73 0.34 0.18 0.57 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 41.6 42.8 40.5 38.8 38.8 35.4 40.2 44.1 14.0 23.8 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.06 2.27 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.74 0.75 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 1.6 0.1 4.3 2.1 0.1 9.1 0.4 0.5 1.8 0.1 Delay(s) 42.0 44.3 40.6 45.7 43.4 80.4 49.3 44.4 8.2 19.5 13.3 Level of Service D D D D D F D D A B B Approach Delay(s) 42.8 54.0 46.0 17.3 Approach LOS D D D B r HCM Average Control Delay 37.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 101 1073 27 162 177 42 27 99 281 258 204 176 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1530 4377 3213 3217 1597 1681 2515 3045 3139 1379 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1530 4377 3213 3217 1597 1681 2515 3045 3139 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 106 1129 28 171 186 44 28 104 296 272 215 185 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 2 0 0 25 0 0 0 100 0 0 145 Lane Group Flow(vph) 106 1155 0 171 205 0 28 104 196 272 215 40 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 18% 18% 18% 9% 9% 9% 13% 13% 13% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 52.8 54.0 10.2 11.4 4.3 12.1 22.3 15.7 23.5 23.5 Effective Green,g(s) 52.8 54.0 10.2 11.4 4.3 12.1 22.3 15.7 23.5 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.49 0.09 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 734 2149 298 333 62 185 510 435 671 295 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.26 0.05 c0.06 0.02 c0.06 0.08 c0.09 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.54 0.57 0.62 0.45 0.56 0.38 0.63 0.32 0.13 Uniform Delay,d1 16.0 19.4 47.8 47.2 51.7 46.4 37.9 44.4 36.5 35.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.74 0.35 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 1.0 1.6 2.3 1.9 2.3 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 Delay(s) 16.4 20.3 37.1 33.7 53.6 48.8 38.1 37.1 27.0 12.4 Level of Service B C D C D D D D C B Approach Delay(s) 20.0 35.1 41.7 27.1 Approach LOS C D D C r HCM Average Control Delay 27.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 37 922 552 35 64 19 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1703 4893 4620 1656 1433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1703 4893 4625 1656 1433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 39 960 575 36 67 20 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 3 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow(vph) 39 960 608 0 67 2 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 11% 11% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.8 84.5 75.7 7.5 7.5 Effective Green,g(s) 4.8 82.5 73.7 7.5 7.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.82 0.74 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 82 4037 3405 124 107 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.20 0.13 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.24 0.18 0.54 0.01 Uniform Delay,d1 46.4 1.9 4.0 44.6 42.8 Progression Factor 0.96 1.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.2 0.1 0.1 2.6 0.0 Delay(s) 45.9 3.5 4.1 47.1 42.8 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay(s) 5.2 4.1 46.2 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 6.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB/Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 976 45 12 51 1 3 3 64 526 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3104 1284 1597 1429 1484 1597 1597 2515 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3104 1284 1597 1429 1484 1597 1597 2515 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 1017 47 12 53 1 3 3 67 548 RTOR Reduction(vph) 1 25 0 0 3 0 0 0 221 Lane Group Flow(vph) 1021 17 12 53 1 0 3 67 327 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Turn Type Perm custom Prot custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 5 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 22.3 22.3 5.0 10.5 4.7 5.0 10.5 32.8 Effective Green,g(s) 22.3 22.3 5.0 10.5 4.7 5.0 10.5 32.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.60 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1259 521 145 273 127 145 305 1500 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 c0.01 0.04 c0.00 0.00 c0.04 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.03 0.08 0.19 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.22 Uniform Delay,d1 14.5 9.9 22.9 18.7 23.0 22.8 18.8 5.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.39 10.50 Incremental Delay,d2 3.9 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 Delay(s) 18.4 9.9 24.0 18.9 23.0 22.2 26.4 54.1 Level of Service B A C B C C C D Approach Delay(s) 18.0 19.9 23.0 51.0 Approach LOS B B C D r HCM Average Control Delay 29.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 55.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 799 1329 155 15 228 12 59 74 94 22 45 108 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3303 3334 1626 3223 1573 1650 1445 1656 1549 1372 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3303 3324 1626 3223 1573 1650 1445 1656 1549 1372 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 841 1399 163 16 240 13 62 78 99 23 47 114 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 89 0 34 70 Lane Group Flow(vph) 841 1557 0 16 249 0 56 84 10 23 51 6 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 5 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 11% 11% 11% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 39.1 63.7 2.4 27.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 Effective Green,g(s) 36.1 60.7 2.4 27.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.61 0.02 0.27 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1192 2024 39 870 151 158 139 137 129 114 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.47 0.01 c0.08 0.04 c0.05 0.01 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.77 0.41 0.29 0.37 0.53 0.07 0.17 0.40 0.06 Uniform Delay,d1 27.4 14.5 48.1 28.9 42.4 43.1 41.1 42.6 43.5 42.2 Progression Factor 0.57 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 1.9 2.5 0.8 0.6 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 Delay(s) 16.7 9.8 50.6 29.7 42.9 44.8 41.2 42.9 44.2 42.3 Level of Service B A D C D D D D D D Approach Delay(s) 12.2 31.0 42.9 43.3 Approach LOS B C D D r HCM Average Control Delay 18.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 192 1780 61 52 349 56 47 71 286 255 111 12 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1703 4863 1626 4565 1656 2826 1687 3318 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1703 4863 1626 4565 1656 2826 1687 3318 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 196 1816 62 53 356 57 48 72 292 260 113 12 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 3 0 0 28 0 0 212 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 196 1875 0 53 385 0 48 152 0 260 115 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 11% 11% 11% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 33.5 44.3 6.6 17.4 15.8 9.8 23.3 17.3 Effective Green,g(s) 33.5 44.3 6.6 17.4 15.8 9.8 23.3 17.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.44 0.07 0.17 0.16 0.10 0.23 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 571 2154 107 794 262 277 393 574 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.39 0.03 c0.08 0.03 c0.05 c0.15 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.34 0.87 0.50 0.48 0.18 0.55 0.66 0.20 Uniform Delay,d1 25.0 25.3 45.1 37.3 36.5 43.0 34.8 35.4 Progression Factor 0.72 0.67 0.85 0.73 0.91 0.79 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 2.8 1.3 2.1 0.1 1.1 3.2 0.1 Delay(s) 18.0 19.6 39.7 29.2 33.4 35.2 38.0 35.5 Level of Service B B D C C D D D Approach Delay(s) 19.5 30.4 35.0 37.2 Approach LOS B C C D r HCM Average Control Delay 24.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 244 1171 238 5 0 54 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 262 1259 256 5 0 58 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal(ft) 533 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 261 1413 131 vC1,stage 1 conf vol 259 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 1154 vCu, unblocked vol 261 1413 131 tC,single(s) *4.2 6.9 *7.1 tC,2 stage(s) 5.9 tF(s) *2.3 3.5 *3.4 p0 queue free% 79 100 93 cM capacity(veh/h) 1253 199 870 Volume Total 262 630 630 171 91 58 Volume Left 262 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 5 58 cSH 1253 1700 1700 1700 1700 870 Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.05 0.07 Queue Length 95th(ft) 20 0 0 0 0 5 Control Delay(s) 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 1.5 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A r Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project—A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21 : Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 964 22 15 393 224 1069 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4854 1626 4673 1656 1448 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4854 1626 4673 1656 1448 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 974 22 15 397 226 1080 RTOR Reduction(vph) 3 0 0 0 0 98 Lane Group Flow(vph) 993 0 15 397 226 982 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 11% 11% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 31.4 2.7 38.1 53.9 53.9 Effective Green,g(s) 31.4 2.7 38.1 53.9 53.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.03 0.38 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1524 44 1780 893 780 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.01 c0.08 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.68 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.34 0.22 0.25 1.26 Uniform Delay,d1 29.6 47.8 20.9 12.3 23.1 Progression Factor 0.85 0.55 0.57 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.1 1.7 0.3 0.1 127.0 Delay(s) 27.2 28.0 12.1 12.4 150.0 Level of Service C C B B F Approach Delay(s) 27.2 12.7 126.2 Approach LOS C B F r HCM Average Control Delay 72.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Grandview Dr. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 514 650 150 33 49 83 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 553 699 161 35 53 89 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal(ft) 1197 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 197 1634 98 vC1,stage 1 conf vol 179 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 1455 vCu, unblocked vol 197 1634 98 tC,single(s) *4.2 *7.0 *7.1 tC,2 stage(s) 6.0 tF(s) *2.3 *3.6 *3.4 p0 queue free% 58 45 90 cM capacity(veh/h) 1324 95 913 Volume Total 553 349 349 108 89 142 Volume Left 553 0 0 0 0 53 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 35 89 cSH 1324 1700 1700 1700 1700 218 Volume to Capacity 0.42 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.05 0.65 Queue Length 95th(ft) 53 0 0 0 0 99 Control Delay(s) 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.8 Lane LOS A E Approach Delay(s) 4.3 0.0 47.8 Approach LOS E r Average Delay 7.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project—A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 22 714 86 109 179 5 62 5 121 6 7 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate(vph) 24 793 96 121 199 6 69 6 134 7 8 12 Volume Total(vph) 421 492 221 105 209 27 Volume Left(vph) 24 0 121 0 69 7 Volume Right(vph) 0 96 0 6 134 12 Hadj(s) 0.18 0.02 0.43 0.12 -0.17 -0.07 Departure Headway(s) 6.0 5.8 6.9 6.6 6.2 6.9 Degree Utilization,x 0.70 0.79 0.42 0.19 0.36 0.05 Capacity(veh/h) 421 607 500 520 556 476 Control Delay(s) 20.5 26.3 13.8 10.0 12.7 10.3 Approach Delay(s) 23.6 12.5 12.7 10.3 Approach LOS C B B B r Delay 19.4 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: I nt 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 18 447 220 271 1314 142 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3246 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3246 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 20 497 244 301 1460 158 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 224 0 0 40 Lane Group Flow(vph) 20 497 321 0 1460 118 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 2.0 22.8 16.8 69.2 69.2 Effective Green,g(s) 2.0 22.8 16.8 69.2 69.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.23 0.17 0.69 0.69 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 35 807 545 1225 1095 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 0.10 c0.83 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.57 0.62 0.59 1.19 0.11 Uniform Delay,d1 48.6 34.7 38.4 15.4 5.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 20.6 1.4 1.6 94.7 0.2 Delay(s) 69.1 36.1 40.0 110.1 5.3 Level of Service E D D F A Approach Delay(s) 37.4 40.0 99.8 Approach LOS D D F r HCM Average Control Delay 75.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E+P_AM_Forbes Blvd.&Gull Dr. 4/2/2012 Baseline Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 0 14 556 1367 0 0 Sign Control Yield Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 15 591 1454 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1319 1023 2046 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1319 1023 2046 tC,single(s) 6.9 *7.1 4.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 *3.4 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 93 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 145 220 261 Volume Total 15 394 1651 Volume Left 0 0 0 Volume Right 15 0 1454 cSH 220 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.23 0.97 Queue Length 95th(ft) 5 0 0 Control Delay(s) 22.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay(s) 22.6 0.0 Approach LOS C r Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project—A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 1872 198 30 325 53 17 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow(prot) 3324 1671 3343 1649 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow(perm) 3324 1671 3343 1649 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 1971 208 32 342 56 18 RTOR Reduction(vph) 7 0 0 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 2172 0 32 342 63 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 8% 8% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 55.2 16.9 61.0 25.4 Effective Green,g(s) 55.2 16.9 61.0 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.15 0.55 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1668 257 1854 381 v/s Ratio Prot c0.65 c0.02 c0.10 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.30 0.12 0.18 0.17 Uniform Delay,d1 27.4 40.2 12.2 33.8 Progression Factor 0.76 1.54 0.26 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 139.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 Delay(s) 159.8 61.9 3.2 34.8 Level of Service F E A C Approach Delay(s) 159.8 8.3 34.8 Approach LOS F A C r HCM Average Control Delay 134.7 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 1109 311 58 385 247 0 104 1111 370 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4663 1671 4803 3014 1507 1435 3720 1509 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4663 1671 4803 3014 1507 1435 3720 1509 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 1120 314 59 389 249 0 105 1122 374 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 1434 0 59 389 167 82 25 1122 374 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 6 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm custom custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 32.3 6.2 91.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 44.7 44.7 Effective Green,g(s) 32.3 6.2 87.7 10.8 10.8 10.8 44.7 44.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.06 0.80 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1369 94 3829 296 148 141 1512 613 v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 c0.04 0.08 c0.06 0.05 c0.30 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.63 0.10 0.56 0.55 0.18 0.74 0.61 Uniform Delay,d1 38.9 50.8 2.5 47.4 47.3 45.5 27.8 25.8 Progression Factor 0.83 1.10 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 36.2 9.1 0.0 1.5 2.5 0.2 1.8 1.3 Delay(s) 68.3 64.7 1.6 48.8 49.8 45.7 29.5 27.0 Level of Service E E A D D D C C Approach Delay(s) 68.3 9.9 48.1 Approach LOS E A D r HCM Average Control Delay 43.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 3 548 1214 11 139 0 201 3 18 0 0 1 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1703 1792 1474 1671 3343 1687 1527 1536 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1703 1792 1474 1671 3343 1345 1527 1536 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow(vph) 3 583 1291 12 148 0 214 3 19 0 0 1 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 341 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 3 583 950 12 148 0 214 7 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 9.6 74.4 74.4 1.4 66.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 Effective Green,g(s) 9.6 74.4 74.4 1.4 66.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.68 0.68 0.01 0.60 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 149 1212 997 21 2012 271 308 310 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.33 c0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.64 c0.16 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.48 0.95 0.57 0.07 0.79 0.02 0.00 Uniform Delay,d1 45.9 8.5 16.2 54.0 9.1 41.7 35.2 35.0 Progression Factor 0.71 1.40 9.46 0.99 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 1.1 16.1 21.2 0.1 13.1 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 32.6 13.0 169.3 74.8 10.0 54.8 35.2 35.0 Level of Service C B F E B D D D Approach Delay(s) 120.5 14.9 53.0 35.0 Approach LOS F B D D r HCM Average Control Delay 106.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 498 702 412 181 118 333 274 38 718 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 2968 2879 1215 3213 3312 1463 1517 1539 2515 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 2968 2879 1215 3213 3312 1463 1517 1539 2515 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 508 716 420 185 120 340 280 39 733 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 6 163 0 0 179 0 0 81 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 508 790 177 185 120 161 160 159 652 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 11 8 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 18% 18% 18% 9% 9% 9% 13% 13% 13% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 23.9 57.4 57.4 18.5 52.0 52.0 21.6 21.6 43.6 Effective Green,g(s) 23.9 57.4 57.4 18.5 52.0 52.0 21.6 21.6 40.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.52 0.52 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.20 0.20 0.36 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 645 1502 634 540 1566 692 298 302 917 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.27 0.06 0.04 0.11 0.10 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.53 0.28 0.34 0.08 0.23 0.54 0.53 0.71 Uniform Delay,d1 40.7 17.3 14.7 40.4 15.9 17.2 39.7 39.6 30.0 Progression Factor 0.83 0.58 0.43 1.41 1.82 6.28 0.77 0.76 0.75 Incremental Delay,d2 5.5 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 1.3 Delay(s) 39.3 11.2 7.3 57.1 29.0 108.7 31.0 30.8 23.9 Level of Service D B A E C F C C C Approach Delay(s) 19.1 79.1 26.0 0.0 Approach LOS B E C A r HCM Average Control Delay 32.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Oyster Point Blvd. & Veterans Blvd. (Base Option) II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 281 2043 0 3 369 15 0 0 8 19 0 74 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3303 3406 1671 3312 1509 1687 1419 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3303 3406 1671 3312 1509 1336 1419 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 296 2151 0 3 388 16 0 0 8 20 0 78 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 74 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 296 2151 0 3 403 0 0 0 0 20 4 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 13 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 2 11 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 14.3 90.3 1.6 77.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Effective Green,g(s) 14.3 90.3 1.6 77.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.82 0.01 0.71 0.05 0.05 0.05 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 429 2796 24 2336 77 68 72 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.63 0.00 c0.12 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.77 0.12 0.17 0.01 0.29 0.06 Uniform Delay,d1 45.7 4.8 53.5 5.4 49.6 50.3 49.7 Progression Factor 1.07 0.83 0.91 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.3 1.9 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 Delay(s) 52.1 5.9 49.6 7.2 49.6 51.2 49.8 Level of Service D A D A D D D Approach Delay(s) 11.5 7.5 49.6 50.1 Approach LOS B A D D r HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 78 180 390 24 95 7 423 319 332 6 129 134 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1671 1560 1390 1671 1738 3213 3016 1687 1776 1442 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1671 1560 1390 1671 1738 3213 3016 1687 1776 1442 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 80 184 398 24 97 7 432 326 339 6 132 137 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 24 216 0 2 0 0 147 0 0 0 121 Lane Group Flow(vph) 80 279 63 24 102 0 432 518 0 6 132 16 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 8 3 6 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 5 2 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Split Split Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.1 22.7 22.7 2.9 17.5 46.6 46.6 11.8 11.8 11.8 Effective Green,g(s) 8.1 22.7 22.7 2.9 17.5 46.6 46.6 11.8 11.8 11.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 135 354 316 48 304 1497 1405 199 210 170 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 0.01 c0.06 0.13 c0.17 0.00 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.79 0.20 0.50 0.33 0.29 0.37 0.03 0.63 0.10 Uniform Delay,d1 44.4 36.4 31.3 47.8 36.1 16.5 17.2 39.0 42.0 39.3 Progression Factor 1.03 1.02 1.98 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.74 1.12 1.05 1.96 Incremental Delay,d2 4.3 9.7 0.1 3.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 4.1 0.1 Delay(s) 50.0 46.8 62.2 50.8 36.4 13.9 13.2 43.6 48.2 77.2 Level of Service D D E D D B B D D E Approach Delay(s) 53.7 39.1 13.5 62.6 Approach LOS D D B E r HCM Average Control Delay 33.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 18 11 11 154 249 15 35 392 104 803 26 366 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1706 1461 1656 3269 1687 3374 1470 3221 1361 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1706 1461 1656 3269 1687 3374 1470 3221 1361 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 18 11 11 156 252 15 35 396 105 811 26 370 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 68 3 0 212 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 29 0 156 264 0 35 396 37 871 0 121 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 3 2 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.3 4.3 14.7 46.1 4.7 35.6 35.6 31.4 31.4 Effective Green,g(s) 4.3 4.3 14.7 46.1 4.7 35.6 35.6 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.46 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 73 63 243 1507 79 1201 523 1011 427 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.09 0.08 0.02 c0.12 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.01 0.64 0.18 0.44 0.33 0.07 0.86 0.28 Uniform Delay,d1 46.6 45.8 40.2 15.8 46.4 23.5 21.3 32.2 25.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.33 1.05 1.09 1.82 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.3 0.0 5.4 0.2 1.3 0.6 0.2 7.4 0.1 Delay(s) 47.9 45.8 41.1 5.5 50.1 26.3 39.1 39.6 26.0 Level of Service D D D A D C D D C Approach Delay(s) 47.3 18.6 30.3 35.9 Approach LOS D B C D r HCM Average Control Delay 31.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/21/2012 Existing plus project-A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GCMG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 165 56 76 684 232 186 45 333 110 179 306 145 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1570 1260 2814 1527 1279 1518 3036 1358 1285 2697 1180 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1570 1260 2814 1527 1279 1518 3036 1358 1285 2697 1180 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 174 59 80 720 244 196 47 351 116 188 322 153 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 65 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 123 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 233 15 720 244 60 47 351 116 165 345 30 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 45 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 3 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 12% 12% 12% 7% 7% 7% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Split pt+ov Split Perm Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 6 6 67 2 2 Permitted Phases 8 7 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 18.7 18.7 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.2 15.2 45.7 19.6 19.6 19.6 Effective Green,g(s) 18.7 18.7 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.2 15.2 45.7 19.6 19.6 19.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.46 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 294 236 858 466 390 231 461 621 252 529 231 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.26 0.16 0.03 c0.12 0.09 c0.13 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.06 0.84 0.52 0.15 0.20 0.76 0.19 0.65 0.65 0.13 Uniform Delay,d1 38.8 33.4 32.5 28.7 25.3 37.1 40.7 16.1 37.1 37.1 33.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.63 0.82 0.95 0.98 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.44 Incremental Delay,d2 13.2 0.1 6.8 1.0 0.2 0.3 6.8 0.1 11.8 5.8 1.1 Delay(s) 52.0 33.5 27.4 19.1 21.0 35.5 46.7 13.1 48.9 42.9 48.8 Level of Service D C C B C D D B D D D Approach Delay(s) 47.3 24.6 38.1 45.7 Approach LOS D C D D r HCM Average Control Delay 35.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 89 263 286 1 112 222 0 0 278 42 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1481 1545 1619 3318 3061 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1481 1545 1619 3318 3061 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 98 289 314 1 123 244 0 0 305 46 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 98 260 344 0 0 367 0 0 323 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 7% 7% 7% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 10.7 16.7 16.7 10.7 10.6 Effective Green,g(s) 10.7 16.7 16.7 10.7 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 317 516 541 710 649 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.17 c0.21 c0.11 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.31 0.50 0.64 0.52 0.50 Uniform Delay,d1 16.5 13.3 14.1 17.4 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.8 3.5 5.6 0.8 0.6 Delay(s) 17.3 16.8 19.7 15.9 18.0 Level of Service B B B B B Approach Delay(s) 17.3 18.5 15.9 18.0 Approach LOS B B B B r HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 50.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 121 134 200 742 178 389 78 29 191 152 1114 76 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1480 3081 1455 1480 3014 1455 1687 2886 1570 3139 1379 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1480 3081 1455 1480 3014 1455 1687 2886 1570 3139 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 122 135 202 749 180 393 79 29 193 154 1125 77 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 171 0 0 193 0 132 0 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow(vph) 83 174 31 374 555 200 79 90 0 154 1125 30 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 3 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 7% 7% 7% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 9.6 9.6 9.6 28.2 28.2 28.2 7.6 31.5 14.7 38.6 38.6 Effective Green,g(s) 9.6 9.6 9.6 28.2 28.2 28.2 7.6 31.5 14.7 38.6 38.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.32 0.15 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 142 296 140 417 850 410 128 909 231 1212 532 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.06 0.02 c0.25 0.18 0.14 c0.05 0.03 0.10 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.59 0.22 0.90 0.86dl 0.49 0.62 0.10 0.67 0.93 0.06 Uniform Delay,d1 43.3 43.3 41.8 34.5 31.6 29.9 44.8 24.2 40.3 29.4 19.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.31 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.73 0.51 Incremental Delay,d2 3.9 1.9 0.3 16.8 1.1 0.3 6.1 0.0 13.9 13.2 0.2 Delay(s) 47.2 45.2 42.0 51.5 33.5 39.5 50.9 24.2 55.4 34.8 10.0 Level of Service D D D D C D D C E C A Approach Delay(s) 44.2 40.4 31.2 35.7 Approach LOS D D C D r HCM Average Control Delay 38.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Oyster Point Blvd. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 63 308 22 229 775 64 41 120 127 158 337 416 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1626 4621 3127 3184 3273 1776 2656 3045 3139 1379 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1626 4621 3127 3184 3273 1776 2656 3045 3139 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 66 324 23 241 816 67 43 126 134 166 355 438 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 90 0 0 225 Lane Group Flow(vph) 66 341 0 241 878 0 43 126 44 166 355 213 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 7% 7% 7% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.4 51.2 12.0 54.8 4.0 19.1 36.1 9.7 24.8 24.8 Effective Green,g(s) 8.4 51.2 12.0 52.8 4.0 19.1 36.1 9.7 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.47 0.11 0.48 0.04 0.17 0.33 0.09 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 124 2151 341 1528 119 308 872 269 708 311 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.07 c0.08 c0.28 0.01 0.07 0.02 c0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.16 0.71 0.57 0.36 0.41 0.05 0.62 0.50 0.69 Uniform Delay,d1 48.9 17.0 47.3 20.5 51.8 40.4 25.2 48.4 37.2 39.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.19 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.62 0.37 Incremental Delay,d2 2.2 0.2 4.9 1.4 0.7 0.3 0.0 2.8 0.2 4.7 Delay(s) 51.1 17.1 61.2 12.3 52.4 40.8 25.3 49.6 23.3 19.3 Level of Service D B E B D D C D C B Approach Delay(s) 22.6 22.8 35.6 26.0 Approach LOS C C D C r HCM Average Control Delay 25.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 29 316 1673 40 12 67 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 4940 4608 1656 1422 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 4940 4608 1656 1422 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 30 329 1743 42 12 70 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 1 0 0 66 Lane Group Flow(vph) 30 329 1784 0 12 4 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 12% 12% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.4 86.7 78.3 5.3 5.3 Effective Green,g(s) 4.4 85.7 76.3 5.3 5.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.86 0.76 0.05 0.05 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 76 4234 3516 88 75 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.07 c0.39 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.08 0.51 0.14 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 46.5 1.1 4.6 45.2 45.0 Progression Factor 0.79 0.78 0.30 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 Delay(s) 37.9 0.9 1.8 45.4 45.1 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay(s) 4.0 1.8 45.1 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 3.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB/Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 510 13 35 134 2 2 5 39 1445 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3162 1307 1626 1455 1569 1626 1626 2561 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3162 1307 1626 1455 1569 1626 1626 2561 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 531 14 36 140 2 2 5 41 1505 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 532 3 36 140 2 0 5 41 1250 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Perm custom Prot custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 5 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 26.2 26.2 6.2 69.0 1.1 1.2 64.0 93.2 Effective Green,g(s) 26.2 26.2 6.2 69.0 1.1 1.2 64.0 90.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.63 0.01 0.01 0.58 0.82 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 753 311 92 913 16 18 946 2100 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.02 0.10 c0.00 0.00 0.03 c0.49 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.01 0.39 0.15 0.13 0.28 0.04 0.60 Uniform Delay,d1 38.4 32.0 50.1 8.5 54.0 54.0 9.9 3.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.32 0.44 25.91 Incremental Delay,d2 2.5 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.3 2.1 0.1 0.2 Delay(s) 40.9 32.0 51.1 8.5 55.3 73.4 4.4 90.4 Level of Service D C D A E E A F Approach Delay(s) 40.7 17.2 55.3 88.1 Approach LOS D B E F r HCM Average Control Delay 71.2 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 205 223 63 95 1022 19 179 36 28 4 131 544 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3335 3334 1612 3223 1573 1650 1445 1656 1549 1372 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3324 1612 3223 1573 1650 1445 1656 1549 1372 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 216 235 66 100 1076 20 188 38 29 4 138 573 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 21 0 0 1 0 0 0 26 0 61 237 Lane Group Flow(vph) 216 280 0 100 1095 0 113 113 3 4 306 107 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 5 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 12% 12% 12% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 12.6 41.3 10.0 38.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 21.1 21.1 21.1 Effective Green,g(s) 12.6 41.3 10.0 38.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 21.1 21.1 21.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.41 0.10 0.39 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 420 1377 161 1247 182 191 168 349 327 289 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.08 0.06 c0.34 c0.07 0.07 0.00 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.20 0.62 0.88 0.62 0.59 0.02 0.01 0.94 0.37 Uniform Delay,d1 40.8 18.8 43.2 28.5 42.1 42.0 39.2 31.2 38.8 33.8 Progression Factor 0.81 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 0.3 5.3 8.9 4.7 3.2 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.3 Delay(s) 34.2 13.5 48.4 37.4 46.8 45.2 39.2 31.2 71.8 34.1 Level of Service C B D D D D D C E C Approach Delay(s) 22.2 38.3 45.2 53.4 Approach LOS C D D D r HCM Average Control Delay 39.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 96 355 74 269 1487 95 66 45 54 93 340 23 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 4778 1612 4585 1703 3068 1752 3467 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 4778 1612 4585 1703 3068 1752 3467 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 98 362 76 274 1517 97 67 46 55 95 347 23 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 30 0 0 5 0 0 48 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 98 408 0 274 1609 0 67 53 0 95 364 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 12% 12% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 9.6 37.0 24.7 52.1 7.4 13.6 8.7 14.9 Effective Green,g(s) 9.6 37.0 24.7 50.1 7.4 13.6 8.7 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.37 0.25 0.50 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.15 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 165 1768 398 2297 126 417 152 517 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.09 0.17 c0.35 c0.04 0.02 0.05 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.59 0.23 0.69 0.70 0.53 0.13 0.62 0.70 Uniform Delay,d1 43.3 21.7 34.2 19.2 44.6 38.0 44.1 40.5 Progression Factor 0.74 0.64 0.84 0.67 1.02 1.15 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.7 0.3 2.5 1.1 2.1 0.1 5.7 3.6 Delay(s) 35.9 14.2 31.3 13.9 47.6 43.8 49.7 44.0 Level of Service D B C B D D D D Approach Delay(s) 18.1 16.4 45.3 45.2 Approach LOS B B D D r HCM Average Control Delay 22.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 66 165 1108 26 0 146 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 71 177 1191 28 0 157 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal(ft) 533 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1219 1436 610 vC1,stage 1 conf vol 1205 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 231 vCu, unblocked vol 1219 1436 610 tC,single(s) *4.2 7.0 *7.1 tC,2 stage(s) 6.0 tF(s) *2.2 3.6 *3.4 p0 queue free% 87 100 62 cM capacity(veh/h) 560 222 418 Volume Total 71 89 89 794 425 157 Volume Left 71 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 28 157 cSH 560 1700 1700 1700 1700 418 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.47 0.25 0.38 Queue Length 95th(ft) 11 0 0 0 0 43 Control Delay(s) 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay(s) 3.5 0.0 18.7 Approach LOS C r Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21 : Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 283 45 43 1423 290 241 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4762 1612 4631 1656 1448 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4762 1612 4631 1656 1448 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 286 45 43 1437 293 243 RTOR Reduction(vph) 14 0 0 0 0 188 Lane Group Flow(vph) 317 0 43 1437 293 55 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 12% 12% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 60.2 5.1 69.3 22.7 22.7 Effective Green,g(s) 60.2 5.1 69.3 22.7 22.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.05 0.69 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2867 82 3209 376 329 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.03 c0.31 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.52 0.45 0.78 0.17 Uniform Delay,d1 8.5 46.3 6.8 36.3 31.1 Progression Factor 0.72 1.08 0.70 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 2.1 0.3 9.0 0.1 Delay(s) 6.1 52.2 5.1 45.3 31.1 Level of Service A D A D C Approach Delay(s) 6.1 6.5 38.9 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Grandview Dr. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 51 115 618 32 11 475 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 56 126 679 35 12 522 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal(ft) 1197 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 714 872 357 vC1,stage 1 conf vol 697 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 175 vCu, unblocked vol 714 872 357 tC,single(s) *4.2 *7.0 *7.1 tC,2 stage(s) 6.0 tF(s) *2.2 *3.6 *3.4 p0 queue free% 94 97 15 cM capacity(veh/h) 878 410 617 Volume Total 56 63 63 453 262 534 Volume Left 56 0 0 0 0 12 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 35 522 cSH 878 1700 1700 1700 1700 610 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.27 0.15 0.88 Queue Length 95th(ft) 5 0 0 0 0 255 Control Delay(s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.7 Lane LOS A E Approach Delay(s) 2.9 0.0 38.7 Approach LOS E r Average Delay 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 13 147 28 95 615 5 67 8 69 5 13 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 14 162 31 104 676 5 74 9 76 5 14 30 Volume Total(vph) 95 112 442 343 158 49 Volume Left(vph) 14 0 104 0 74 5 Volume Right(vph) 0 31 0 5 76 30 Hadj(s) 0.23 -0.04 0.27 0.14 -0.04 -0.18 Departure Headway(s) 6.4 6.1 5.7 5.6 6.0 6.1 Degree Utilization,x 0.17 0.19 0.70 0.53 0.26 0.08 Capacity(veh/h) 530 558 620 634 564 530 Control Delay(s) 9.5 9.3 19.9 13.6 11.1 9.7 Approach Delay(s) 9.4 17.1 11.1 9.7 Approach LOS A C B A r Delay 14.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: I nt 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 102 134 610 1002 136 77 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3209 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3209 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow(vph) 113 149 678 1113 146 83 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 277 0 0 63 Lane Group Flow(vph) 113 149 1514 0 146 20 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 11.7 68.1 52.4 23.9 23.9 Effective Green,g(s) 11.7 68.1 52.4 23.9 23.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.68 0.52 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 207 2410 1682 423 378 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.04 c0.47 c0.08 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.55 0.06 0.99dr 0.35 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 41.6 5.3 21.4 31.6 29.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.9 0.0 7.0 2.2 0.3 Delay(s) 44.6 5.3 28.4 33.8 29.6 Level of Service D A C C C Approach Delay(s) 22.3 28.4 32.3 Approach LOS C C C r HCM Average Control Delay 28.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Existing-PM-Forbes Blvd.&Gull Dr. 4/2/2012 Baseline Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 0 9 65 471 0 0 Sign Control Yield Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 10 71 512 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 327 291 583 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 327 291 583 tC,single(s) 7.0 *7.1 4.3 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.6 *3.4 2.3 p0 queue free% 100 99 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 624 682 941 Volume Total 10 47 536 Volume Left 0 0 0 Volume Right 10 0 512 cSH 682 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.32 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 10.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay(s) 10.4 0.0 Approach LOS B r Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 327 39 13 1627 282 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow(prot) 3394 1671 3343 1701 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow(perm) 3394 1671 3343 1701 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 344 41 14 1713 297 11 RTOR Reduction(vph) 11 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 374 0 14 1713 306 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 8% 8% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 30.5 42.1 67.8 23.9 Effective Green,g(s) 30.5 42.1 67.8 23.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.39 0.62 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 950 645 2079 373 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.01 c0.51 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.39 0.02 0.82 0.82 Uniform Delay,d1 31.8 20.7 16.0 40.5 Progression Factor 1.00 2.09 1.93 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.2 0.0 0.3 12.9 Delay(s) 33.0 43.2 31.1 53.5 Level of Service C D C D Approach Delay(s) 33.0 31.2 53.5 Approach LOS C C D r HCM Average Control Delay 34.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 109.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 259 46 48 2078 972 0 75 147 27 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4848 1671 4803 3099 1550 1483 3755 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4848 1671 4803 3099 1550 1483 3755 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 262 46 48 2099 982 0 76 148 27 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 308 0 48 2099 658 324 20 148 27 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 6 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 8% 8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm custom custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 50.1 6.7 61.3 28.5 28.5 28.5 8.7 8.7 Effective Green,g(s) 50.1 6.7 61.3 28.5 28.5 28.5 8.7 8.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.06 0.56 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2208 102 2677 803 402 384 297 121 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.03 c0.44 c0.21 0.21 c0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.47 0.78 0.82 0.81 0.05 0.50 0.22 Uniform Delay,d1 17.4 49.9 19.1 38.3 38.2 30.6 48.6 47.5 Progression Factor 0.89 1.13 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 1.1 2.1 6.2 10.6 0.0 0.5 0.3 Delay(s) 15.7 57.6 16.9 44.5 48.8 30.6 49.0 47.8 Level of Service B E B D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 15.7 17.8 44.8 Approach LOS B B D r HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 1 112 226 16 473 1 1030 0 19 2 0 2 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 1827 1498 1671 3341 1703 1503 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 1827 1498 1671 3341 1354 1503 1614 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow(vph) 1 119 240 17 503 1 1096 0 20 2 0 2 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 183 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 1 119 57 17 504 0 1096 13 0 0 3 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 1.0 25.9 25.9 2.8 27.7 69.3 69.3 69.3 Effective Green,g(s) 1.0 25.9 25.9 2.8 27.7 69.3 69.3 69.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.25 0.63 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 16 430 353 43 841 853 947 1017 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.07 c0.01 c0.15 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.81 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.28 0.16 0.40 0.60 1.28 0.01 0.00 Uniform Delay,d1 54.0 34.4 33.4 52.8 36.3 20.4 7.6 7.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 1.6 1.0 2.2 3.1 137.1 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 54.6 36.0 34.4 54.9 39.4 157.4 7.6 7.5 Level of Service D D C D D F A A Approach Delay(s) 35.0 39.9 154.8 7.5 Approach LOS C D F A r HCM Average Control Delay 103.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 178 147 268 1221 680 1149 388 100 158 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 *1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3155 2852 1285 3223 3223 1675 1545 1579 2561 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3155 2852 1285 3223 3223 1675 1545 1579 2561 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 182 150 273 1246 694 1172 396 102 161 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 107 106 0 0 201 0 0 48 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 182 180 30 1246 694 971 246 252 113 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 11 8 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 14.5 24.0 24.0 51.9 61.4 61.4 21.6 21.6 77.5 Effective Green,g(s) 14.5 24.0 24.0 51.9 61.4 61.4 21.6 21.6 77.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.56 0.56 0.20 0.20 0.70 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 416 622 280 1521 1799 935 303 310 1804 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.06 0.39 0.22 0.16 c0.16 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.58 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.29 0.11 0.82 0.39 1.04 0.81 0.81 0.06 Uniform Delay,d1 44.0 35.9 34.4 25.0 13.7 24.3 42.3 42.3 5.0 Progression Factor 0.74 0.68 1.28 0.87 0.65 0.93 0.63 0.63 0.80 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 1.1 0.7 3.4 0.4 34.3 13.4 13.2 0.0 Delay(s) 33.0 25.5 44.9 25.0 9.4 57.0 40.1 39.9 4.0 Level of Service C C D C A E D D A Approach Delay(s) 32.1 33.6 31.2 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A r HCM Average Control Delay 33.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Oyster Point Blvd. & Veterans Blvd. (Base Option) II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 71 407 0 5 1910 17 0 0 0 7 0 216 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3367 3471 1671 3336 1703 1471 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3367 3471 1671 3336 1357 1471 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 75 428 0 5 2011 18 0 0 0 7 0 227 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 75 428 0 5 2029 0 0 0 0 7 110 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 13 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 2 11 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 6.1 83.5 1.2 78.6 12.8 12.8 Effective Green,g(s) 6.1 83.5 1.2 78.6 12.8 12.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.76 0.01 0.71 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 187 2635 18 2384 158 171 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.12 0.00 c0.61 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.16 0.28 0.85 0.04 0.65 Uniform Delay,d1 50.2 3.6 54.0 11.4 43.2 46.4 Progression Factor 0.99 1.07 1.10 0.88 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 0.1 2.8 3.8 0.0 6.1 Delay(s) 50.2 4.0 62.0 13.8 43.2 52.6 Level of Service D A E B D D Approach Delay(s) 10.9 14.0 0.0 52.3 Approach LOS B B A D r HCM Average Control Delay 16.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 34 101 342 103 350 3 494 124 61 7 200 465 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 1571 1441 1736 1824 3303 3208 1752 1845 1504 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 1571 1441 1736 1824 3303 3208 1752 1845 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 35 103 349 105 357 3 504 127 62 7 204 474 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 49 182 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 216 Lane Group Flow(vph) 35 183 39 105 360 0 504 149 0 7 204 258 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 8 3 6 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 5 2 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Split Split Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.4 17.5 17.5 11.2 24.3 34.9 34.9 20.4 20.4 20.4 Effective Green,g(s) 4.4 17.5 17.5 11.2 24.3 34.9 34.9 20.4 20.4 20.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 76 275 252 194 443 1153 1120 357 376 307 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.12 0.06 c0.20 c0.15 0.05 0.00 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.17 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.67 0.15 0.54 0.81 0.44 0.13 0.02 0.54 0.84 Uniform Delay,d1 46.6 38.5 35.0 42.0 35.7 25.0 22.2 31.8 35.6 38.2 Progression Factor 0.98 1.20 2.70 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.23 0.91 0.98 1.34 Incremental Delay,d2 1.5 4.5 0.1 1.7 10.3 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.8 16.2 Delay(s) 47.2 50.8 94.5 43.6 46.0 29.6 27.6 29.1 35.7 67.4 Level of Service D D F D D C C C D E Approach Delay(s) 70.3 45.5 29.0 57.6 Approach LOS E D C E r HCM Average Control Delay 49.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 16 8 12 315 289 15 16 476 153 358 13 188 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1768 1517 1703 3367 1752 3505 1528 3342 1383 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1768 1517 1703 3367 1752 3505 1528 3342 1383 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 16 8 12 318 292 15 16 481 155 362 13 190 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 12 0 2 0 0 0 88 4 0 144 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 24 0 318 305 0 16 481 67 390 0 27 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 3 2 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.1 4.1 23.9 62.1 4.4 42.1 42.1 15.9 15.9 Effective Green,g(s) 4.1 4.1 23.9 62.1 4.4 42.1 42.1 15.9 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.24 0.62 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 72 62 407 2091 77 1476 643 531 220 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.19 0.09 0.01 c0.14 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.01 0.78 0.15 0.21 0.33 0.10 0.73 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 46.6 46.0 35.6 7.9 46.1 19.4 17.5 40.0 36.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.40 0.85 0.75 0.62 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 0.0 9.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 4.5 0.1 Delay(s) 47.6 46.0 39.8 11.2 39.9 15.1 11.2 44.5 36.2 Level of Service D D D B D B B D D Approach Delay(s) 47.1 25.7 14.8 42.0 Approach LOS D C B D r HCM Average Control Delay 27.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/22/2012 Existing plus project P.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 249 348 86 196 146 73 35 453 215 561 527 129 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1642 1340 3060 1660 1385 1533 3065 1371 3001 2963 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1642 1340 3060 1660 1385 1533 3065 1371 3001 2963 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 257 359 89 202 151 75 36 467 222 578 543 133 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 24 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 616 65 202 151 8 36 467 222 578 655 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 45 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 3 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 7 Actuated Green, G(s) 32.5 32.5 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.9 21.4 32.4 25.1 37.6 Effective Green,g(s) 32.5 32.5 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.9 21.4 32.4 25.1 37.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.20 0.31 0.24 0.35 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 503 411 318 172 144 129 619 419 711 1051 v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 0.07 c0.09 0.02 c0.15 0.16 c0.19 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.22 0.16 0.64 0.88 0.05 0.28 0.75 0.53 0.81 0.62 Uniform Delay,d1 36.8 26.8 45.6 46.8 42.8 45.5 39.8 30.5 38.2 28.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.87 0.94 0.92 0.83 0.83 0.86 Incremental Delay,d2 117.8 0.1 4.1 35.8 0.2 1.1 4.6 0.9 6.7 2.6 Delay(s) 154.6 26.9 54.3 87.1 80.2 43.9 41.4 26.2 38.2 26.9 Level of Service F C D F F D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 138.5 70.4 36.9 32.1 Approach LOS F E D C r HCM Average Control Delay 62.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 125 563 166 65 35 136 0 0 529 58 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.86 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1565 3335 1733 3371 3438 1450 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1565 3335 1733 3371 3438 1450 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 129 580 171 67 36 140 0 0 545 60 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 129 580 227 0 0 176 0 0 545 13 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Split Split Perm Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 15.1 56.3 56.3 15.1 22.6 22.6 Effective Green,g(s) 15.1 56.3 56.3 15.1 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.14 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 223 1771 920 480 733 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.17 0.13 0.05 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.33 0.25 0.37 0.74 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 42.5 14.1 13.4 41.1 39.0 33.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 4.1 0.1 Delay(s) 46.8 14.6 14.1 30.0 43.1 33.2 Level of Service D B B C D C Approach Delay(s) 46.8 14.4 30.0 42.1 Approach LOS D B C D r HCM Average Control Delay 28.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 135 219 129 442 219 182 213 160 513 163 679 74 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1564 3279 1538 4848 1810 1538 1703 3406 1494 1719 3438 1510 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1564 3279 1538 4848 1810 1538 1703 3406 1494 1719 3438 1510 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 139 226 133 456 226 188 220 165 529 168 700 76 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 117 0 0 129 0 0 466 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow(vph) 118 247 16 456 226 59 220 165 63 168 700 30 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 3 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.2 12.7 12.7 46.6 42.1 42.1 Effective Green,g(s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.2 12.7 12.7 46.6 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.44 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 189 396 186 819 306 260 276 408 179 756 1365 600 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.08 0.01 0.09 c0.12 0.04 c0.13 0.05 0.10 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.09 0.56 0.74 0.23 0.80 0.40 0.35 0.22 0.51 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 44.3 44.3 41.4 40.4 41.8 38.1 42.7 43.2 42.9 18.4 24.2 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.88 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.42 0.38 Incremental Delay,d2 4.6 2.2 0.1 0.5 7.7 0.2 13.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.1 Delay(s) 48.9 46.5 41.5 35.8 44.5 41.3 56.5 43.4 43.3 7.9 11.4 7.7 Level of Service D D D D D D E D D A B A Approach Delay(s) 45.7 39.2 46.5 10.5 Approach LOS D D D B r HCM Average Control Delay 33.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 104 1011 54 211 219 188 60 262 686 838 323 177 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3335 4898 1736 3471 1553 3303 1792 2682 3335 3438 1514 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 4898 1736 3471 1553 3303 1792 2682 3335 3438 1514 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 107 1042 56 218 226 194 62 270 707 864 333 182 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 6 0 0 0 173 0 0 12 0 0 112 Lane Group Flow(vph) 107 1092 0 218 226 21 62 270 695 864 333 70 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.1 27.4 14.0 11.3 11.3 5.5 16.8 30.8 28.8 40.1 40.1 Effective Green,g(s) 30.1 27.4 14.0 11.3 11.3 5.5 16.8 30.8 28.8 40.1 40.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.26 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.16 0.29 0.27 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 956 1278 231 374 167 173 287 787 915 1313 578 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.22 c0.13 0.07 0.02 c0.15 0.26 c0.26 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.85 0.94 0.60 0.13 0.36 0.94 0.88 0.94 0.25 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 27.6 36.9 45.1 44.7 42.4 48.0 43.6 35.4 37.3 22.2 21.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.50 1.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.74 1.05 Incremental Delay,d2 0.2 7.4 42.2 1.8 0.1 0.5 37.1 11.2 15.7 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 27.8 44.3 65.9 24.3 62.5 48.5 80.7 46.6 46.4 16.5 22.1 Level of Service C D E C E D F D D B C Approach Delay(s) 42.9 50.1 55.6 36.0 Approach LOS D D E D r HCM Average Control Delay 44.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 105.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 85 1039 519 48 98 105 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 4988 4822 1719 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 4988 4822 1719 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 88 1071 535 49 101 108 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 4 0 0 97 Lane Group Flow(vph) 88 1071 580 0 101 11 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.6 87.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Effective Green,g(s) 8.6 87.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.82 0.71 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 141 4113 3403 172 150 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.21 0.12 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.26 0.17 0.59 0.07 Uniform Delay,d1 47.1 2.1 5.2 45.6 43.2 Progression Factor 0.83 1.07 1.64 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.2 0.1 0.1 3.3 0.1 Delay(s) 42.2 2.3 8.7 48.9 43.3 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay(s) 5.3 8.7 46.0 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 10.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB/Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 1565 0 92 14 102 1 3 3 129 1148 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 1583 1770 1583 1630 1770 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 1583 1770 1583 1630 1857 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 1613 0 95 14 105 1 3 3 133 1184 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 95 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 133 Lane Group Flow(vph) 1613 0 0 14 105 1 0 0 136 1051 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type NA custom Perm custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 57.1 0.0 2.0 37.6 0.8 32.6 93.2 Effective Green,g(s) 57.1 0.0 2.0 37.6 0.8 32.6 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.00 0.02 0.36 0.01 0.31 0.89 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1867 0 34 567 12 577 2474 v/s Ratio Prot c0.47 c0.01 0.07 c0.00 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.00 0.41 0.19 0.09 0.24 0.42 Uniform Delay,d1 20.6 52.5 50.9 23.2 51.7 26.9 1.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 16.40 Incremental Delay,d2 4.3 0.0 2.9 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.0 Delay(s) 24.9 52.5 53.9 23.9 52.9 22.5 17.5 Level of Service C D D C D C B Approach Delay(s) 26.4 27.4 52.9 18.0 Approach LOS C C D B r HCM Average Control Delay 23.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 105.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 624 1846 247 30 329 110 121 169 517 204 175 97 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 4980 3400 4830 1752 3505 1535 1752 1845 2698 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 4980 3400 4830 1752 3505 1535 1752 1845 2698 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 643 1903 255 31 339 113 125 174 533 210 180 100 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 16 0 0 56 0 0 0 146 0 0 84 Lane Group Flow(vph) 643 2142 0 31 396 0 125 174 387 210 180 16 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 5 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 24.3 41.4 3.6 20.7 28.3 28.3 28.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 Effective Green,g(s) 24.3 41.4 3.6 20.7 28.3 28.3 28.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.39 0.03 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 787 1945 115 943 468 936 410 276 291 425 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.43 0.01 c0.08 0.07 0.05 c0.12 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.82 1.10 0.27 0.42 0.27 0.19 0.94 0.76 0.62 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 38.7 32.3 49.9 37.4 30.7 30.0 38.1 42.7 41.7 37.8 Progression Factor 0.69 0.83 0.75 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 46.5 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.0 30.1 10.6 2.7 0.0 Delay(s) 27.4 73.4 38.1 28.0 30.8 30.0 68.2 53.3 44.4 37.8 Level of Service C E D C C C E D D D Approach Delay(s) 62.8 28.7 54.6 46.9 Approach LOS E C D D r HCM Average Control Delay 56.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 198 1533 88 246 258 43 79 145 927 257 198 31 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 5085 1519 3400 4909 1752 1845 1517 1752 3423 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 5085 1519 3400 4909 1752 1845 1517 1752 3423 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 204 1580 91 254 266 44 81 149 956 265 204 32 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 38 0 20 0 0 0 114 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 204 1580 53 254 290 0 81 149 842 265 223 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 16.5 44.2 44.2 8.0 35.7 19.9 29.8 29.8 8.0 17.9 Effective Green,g(s) 16.5 44.2 44.2 8.0 35.7 19.9 29.8 29.8 8.0 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.34 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 276 2120 633 257 1653 329 519 426 132 578 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.31 c0.07 0.06 0.05 0.08 c0.15 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.56 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.75 0.08 0.99 0.18 0.25 0.29 1.98 2.01 0.39 Uniform Delay,d1 42.7 26.1 18.7 49.0 24.8 36.7 29.8 38.1 49.0 39.2 Progression Factor 1.22 0.79 0.80 1.41 1.73 0.81 0.80 0.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 7.9 2.2 0.2 50.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 446.1 479.1 0.2 Delay(s) 60.2 22.9 15.2 119.9 43.0 29.7 23.8 475.5 528.1 39.3 Level of Service E C B F D C C F F D Approach Delay(s) 26.6 77.7 388.3 297.9 Approach LOS C E F F r HCM Average Control Delay 170.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.29 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 298 2188 303 17 16 60 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3476 1630 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3476 1630 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 307 2256 312 18 16 62 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 3 0 58 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 307 2256 327 0 20 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 23.6 91.8 64.2 6.2 Effective Green,g(s) 23.6 91.8 64.2 6.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.87 0.61 0.06 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 394 3065 2105 95 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.64 0.09 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.78 0.74 0.16 0.21 Uniform Delay,d1 38.7 2.6 9.1 47.6 Progression Factor 1.16 0.66 0.53 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 6.6 1.1 0.2 1.1 Delay(s) 51.5 2.8 4.9 48.6 Level of Service D A A D Approach Delay(s) 8.7 4.9 48.6 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 9.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21 : Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 1096 41 27 341 226 723 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 5040 1752 5036 1752 2694 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 5040 1752 5036 1752 2694 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 1130 42 28 352 233 745 RTOR Reduction(vph) 2 0 0 0 0 203 Lane Group Flow(vph) 1170 0 28 352 233 542 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 63.0 4.3 71.3 26.7 26.7 Effective Green,g(s) 63.0 4.3 71.3 26.7 26.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.04 0.67 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2995 71 3387 441 679 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.02 0.07 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.53 0.80 Uniform Delay,d1 11.4 49.6 6.1 34.2 37.1 Progression Factor 0.51 0.96 2.69 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 1.3 0.1 0.5 6.1 Delay(s) 6.2 48.9 16.5 34.7 43.2 Level of Service A D B C D Approach Delay(s) 6.2 18.9 41.2 Approach LOS A B D r HCM Average Control Delay 21.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Grandview Dr. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 360 1844 222 53 68 98 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 3403 1718 1490 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3539 3403 1718 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 371 1901 229 55 70 101 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 24 0 10 74 Lane Group Flow(vph) 371 1901 260 0 79 8 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 39.3 87.8 44.5 10.2 10.2 Effective Green,g(s) 39.3 87.8 44.5 10.2 10.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.83 0.42 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1273 2931 1429 165 143 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.54 0.08 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.65 0.18 0.48 0.06 Uniform Delay,d1 23.5 3.4 19.3 45.4 43.5 Progression Factor 0.80 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.8 0.3 2.2 0.2 Delay(s) 18.9 3.0 19.6 47.6 43.7 Level of Service B A B D D Approach Delay(s) 5.6 19.6 45.7 Approach LOS A B D r HCM Average Control Delay 9.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 22 410 95 178 129 13 60 9 26 26 13 11 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 3436 3423 1738 1762 Flt Permitted 0.94 0.65 0.78 0.78 Satd. Flow(perm) 3228 2272 1394 1414 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 23 423 98 184 133 13 62 9 27 27 13 11 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 22 0 0 3 0 0 22 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 522 0 0 327 0 0 76 0 0 42 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 17.7 17.7 4.5 4.5 Effective Green,g(s) 17.7 17.7 4.5 4.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1892 1332 208 211 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.14 c0.05 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.25 0.36 0.20 Uniform Delay,d1 3.1 3.0 11.6 11.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.5 Delay(s) 3.2 3.1 12.7 11.7 Level of Service A A B B Approach Delay(s) 3.2 3.1 12.7 11.7 Approach LOS A A B B r HCM Average Control Delay 4.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 30.2 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: I nt 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 44 1085 393 373 1301 290 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3281 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3281 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 49 1206 437 414 1446 322 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 168 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow(vph) 49 1206 683 0 1446 232 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 4.0 25.8 17.8 66.2 66.2 Effective Green,g(s) 4.0 25.8 17.8 66.2 66.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.18 0.66 0.66 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 71 913 584 1172 1048 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.34 0.21 c0.82 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.69 1.32 1.17 1.23 0.22 Uniform Delay,d1 47.4 37.1 41.1 16.9 6.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 25.1 152.1 93.8 112.8 0.5 Delay(s) 72.5 189.2 134.9 129.7 7.2 Level of Service E F F F A Approach Delay(s) 184.7 134.9 107.4 Approach LOS F F F r HCM Average Control Delay 138.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.26 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035_AM_with Proj+Eccles-Forbes blvd.&Gull Dr. 4/2/2012 Baseline Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 0 23 856 1029 0 0 Sign Control Yield Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 24 882 1061 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 882 441 1943 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 882 441 1943 tC,single(s) 6.9 7.0 4.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 96 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 280 556 286 Volume Total 24 588 648 707 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 24 0 354 707 cSH 556 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.35 0.38 0.42 Queue Length 95th(ft) 3 0 0 0 Control Delay(s) 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay(s) 11.8 0.0 Approach LOS B r Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 2059 351 54 502 87 52 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3448 1752 3505 3433 1559 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3448 1752 3505 3433 1559 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 2123 362 56 518 90 54 RTOR Reduction(vph) 8 0 0 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow(vph) 2477 0 56 518 90 8 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 96.1 16.2 105.1 21.2 21.2 Effective Green,g(s) 96.1 16.2 105.1 21.2 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.11 0.70 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2209 189 2456 485 220 v/s Ratio Prot c0.72 c0.03 c0.15 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.30 0.21 0.19 0.03 Uniform Delay,d1 27.0 61.6 7.9 56.8 55.6 Progression Factor 0.63 1.55 0.25 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 58.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 Delay(s) 75.8 95.9 2.0 56.9 55.6 Level of Service E F A E E Approach Delay(s) 75.8 11.2 56.4 Approach LOS E B E r HCM Average Control Delay 63.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 150.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 266 1223 556 109 629 12 272 40 199 153 1630 607 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.86 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 4822 1752 6328 4942 1571 1596 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 4822 1752 6328 4942 1571 1596 3902 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 274 1261 573 112 648 12 280 41 205 158 1680 626 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 142 0 106 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 274 1834 0 112 659 0 280 104 0 52 1680 626 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 6 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Split custom custom custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 68 Actuated Green, G(s) 12.0 35.6 7.0 75.7 13.7 13.7 41.1 43.6 43.6 Effective Green,g(s) 12.0 35.6 7.0 75.7 13.7 13.7 41.1 43.6 43.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.28 0.06 0.60 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 169 1363 97 3805 538 171 521 1351 548 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.38 0.06 0.10 0.06 c0.07 c0.43 0.40 v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 v/c Ratio 1.62 1.35 1.15 0.17 0.52 0.61 0.10 1.24 1.14 Uniform Delay,d1 57.0 45.1 59.5 11.2 53.0 53.5 29.5 41.1 41.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 305.1 160.5 139.0 0.0 0.4 4.2 0.1 116.0 84.1 Delay(s) 362.0 205.6 198.4 11.2 53.4 57.7 29.6 157.2 125.3 Level of Service F F F B D E C F F Approach Delay(s) 226.0 38.4 55.4 Approach LOS F D E r HCM Average Control Delay 150.3 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.16 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 125.9 Sum of lost time(s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 130.5% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 27 1612 300 71 383 0 131 3 216 0 3 7 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1536 1752 3505 3433 1564 1687 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 1863 1536 1752 3505 2714 1564 1687 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 28 1662 309 73 395 0 135 3 223 0 3 7 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 28 1662 268 73 395 0 135 78 0 0 4 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 4.2 47.0 47.0 6.8 49.6 9.2 9.2 9.2 Effective Green,g(s) 4.2 47.0 47.0 6.8 49.6 9.2 9.2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.63 0.63 0.09 0.66 0.12 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 99 1167 963 159 2318 333 192 207 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.89 c0.04 0.11 0.05 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.28 1.42 0.28 0.46 0.17 0.41 0.40 0.02 Uniform Delay,d1 34.0 14.0 6.3 32.4 4.8 30.4 30.4 28.9 Progression Factor 0.91 1.62 1.10 1.29 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 194.5 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 Delay(s) 31.2 217.2 7.5 42.4 3.9 30.7 30.9 28.9 Level of Service C F A D A C C C Approach Delay(s) 182.2 9.9 30.8 28.9 Approach LOS F A C C r HCM Average Control Delay 134.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 75.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 629 890 1016 264 228 483 390 110 1170 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3335 3108 1365 3367 3471 2674 3367 1827 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3108 1365 3367 3471 2674 3367 1827 2733 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 648 918 1047 272 235 498 402 113 1206 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 49 353 0 0 377 0 0 48 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 648 1309 254 272 235 121 402 113 1159 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 11 8 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 29.0 44.0 44.0 10.5 25.5 25.5 38.0 38.0 52.5 Effective Green,g(s) 29.0 44.0 44.0 10.5 25.5 25.5 38.0 38.0 52.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.50 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 921 1302 572 337 843 649 1219 661 1367 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.42 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.06 c0.42 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.70 1.01 0.44 0.81 0.28 0.19 0.33 0.17 0.85 Uniform Delay,d1 34.1 30.5 21.8 46.3 32.3 31.5 24.3 22.8 22.8 Progression Factor 0.82 0.76 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.83 0.29 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 17.6 1.1 12.5 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.9 Delay(s) 29.1 40.9 22.4 58.8 33.1 32.2 18.2 19.0 9.4 Level of Service C D C E C C B B A Approach Delay(s) 33.7 39.6 12.1 0.0 Approach LOS C D B A r HCM Average Control Delay 27.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 105.0 Sum of lost time(s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Oyster Point Blvd. & Veterans Blvd. (Base Option) II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 318 2378 404 6 569 16 90 4 3 21 2 91 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.86 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.87 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3450 1752 3505 1514 1770 1743 1681 1294 2662 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3450 1752 3505 1514 1770 1743 1681 1294 2662 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 328 2452 416 6 587 16 93 4 3 22 2 94 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 28 63 Lane Group Flow(vph) 328 2862 0 6 587 10 93 4 0 20 5 2 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 13 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 2 11 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 18.6 114.9 1.0 97.3 97.3 11.9 11.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 Effective Green,g(s) 18.6 114.9 1.0 97.3 97.3 11.9 11.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.77 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 426 2643 12 2274 982 140 138 64 49 101 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.83 0.00 c0.17 c0.05 0.00 c0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.77 1.08 0.50 0.26 0.01 0.66 0.03 0.31 0.10 0.02 Uniform Delay,d1 63.6 17.5 74.3 11.1 9.3 67.1 63.7 70.2 69.7 69.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.66 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 7.4 44.7 11.3 0.3 0.0 8.8 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 Delay(s) 71.0 62.2 73.1 7.6 6.7 76.0 63.8 71.3 70.0 69.5 Level of Service E E E A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 63.1 8.2 75.1 70.0 Approach LOS E A E E r HCM Average Control Delay 55.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 150.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 123 247 525 24 106 7 448 942 787 6 178 289 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3400 1845 2760 1752 5036 1518 3400 3240 1752 1845 2687 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3400 1845 2760 1752 5036 1518 3400 3240 1752 1845 2687 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 127 255 541 25 109 7 462 971 811 6 184 298 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 158 0 0 7 0 117 0 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 127 255 383 25 109 0 462 1665 0 6 184 43 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 8 3 6 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 5 2 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 27 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 14.8 18.1 75.0 3.6 6.9 6.9 52.9 67.1 1.2 15.4 15.4 Effective Green,g(s) 14.8 18.1 75.0 3.6 6.9 6.9 52.9 67.1 1.2 15.4 15.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.17 0.71 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.63 0.01 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 475 315 1953 60 328 99 1697 2051 20 268 390 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.14 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.14 c0.51 0.00 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.81 0.20 0.42 0.33 0.00 0.27 0.81 0.30 0.69 0.11 Uniform Delay,d1 40.8 42.3 5.3 50.2 47.3 46.3 15.4 14.7 52.0 43.0 39.4 Progression Factor 0.91 0.82 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.71 1.08 0.72 1.27 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 11.8 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.0 6.9 4.8 0.0 Delay(s) 37.1 46.7 2.0 51.9 47.6 46.3 13.1 12.4 62.8 35.9 49.9 Level of Service D D A D D D B B E D D Approach Delay(s) 19.2 48.3 12.5 44.8 Approach LOS B D B D r HCM Average Control Delay 19.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 19 65 28 219 280 15 94 544 104 1619 87 445 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1824 1530 1752 1823 1752 3505 1568 3390 2760 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1824 1530 1752 1823 1752 3505 1568 3390 2760 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 20 67 29 226 289 15 97 561 107 1669 90 459 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 27 0 2 0 0 0 107 0 0 87 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 87 2 226 302 0 97 561 0 1759 0 372 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.4 8.4 10.5 19.4 7.0 15.4 0.0 57.7 57.7 Effective Green,g(s) 8.4 8.4 10.5 19.4 7.0 15.4 0.0 57.7 57.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 145 121 174 334 116 509 0 1845 1502 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.13 0.17 0.06 c0.16 c0.52 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.02 1.30 0.91 0.84 1.10 0.00 0.95 0.25 Uniform Delay,d1 47.2 45.0 47.8 42.4 48.9 45.3 53.0 22.9 12.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.08 0.99 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.4 0.0 163.7 25.5 36.2 70.4 0.0 12.5 0.4 Delay(s) 51.6 45.0 215.6 71.4 84.8 120.0 53.0 35.4 13.1 Level of Service D D F E F F D D B Approach Delay(s) 49.9 132.9 106.1 30.8 Approach LOS D F F C r HCM Average Control Delay 62.2 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 192 147 76 730 517 233 45 527 170 224 365 146 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1630 1290 3060 1660 1392 1562 3124 1398 3001 2898 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1630 1290 3060 1660 1392 1562 3124 1398 3001 2898 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 198 152 78 753 533 240 46 543 175 231 376 151 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 32 0 0 147 0 0 0 0 37 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 350 46 753 533 93 46 543 175 231 490 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 45 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 3 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 7 Actuated Green, G(s) 21.2 21.2 46.7 46.7 46.7 8.6 23.6 74.3 12.5 27.5 Effective Green,g(s) 21.2 21.2 46.7 46.7 46.7 8.6 23.6 74.3 12.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.20 0.62 0.10 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 288 228 1191 646 542 112 614 866 313 664 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.25 c0.32 0.03 c0.17 0.13 0.08 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 1.22 0.20 0.63 0.83 0.17 0.41 0.88 0.20 0.74 0.74 Uniform Delay,d1 49.4 42.2 29.7 33.0 24.0 53.3 46.9 9.9 52.2 42.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.04 2.50 1.02 1.01 1.20 1.11 0.91 Incremental Delay,d2 124.4 0.3 0.9 7.2 0.1 2.3 13.4 0.1 8.4 6.9 Delay(s) 173.8 42.5 31.4 41.5 60.1 56.6 60.6 12.0 66.1 46.1 Level of Service F D C D E E E B E D Approach Delay(s) 149.8 39.5 49.2 52.2 Approach LOS F D D D r HCM Average Control Delay 58.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 93 234 387 108 112 316 0 0 408 61 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.86 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1580 3367 1767 3426 3438 1471 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1580 3367 1767 3426 3438 1471 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 96 241 399 111 115 326 0 0 421 63 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 96 241 495 0 0 441 0 0 421 13 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Split Split Perm Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 10.8 24.5 24.5 10.8 12.7 12.7 Effective Green,g(s) 10.8 24.5 24.5 10.8 12.7 12.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 284 1375 722 617 728 311 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.07 c0.28 c0.13 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.18 0.69 0.71 0.58 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 21.5 11.3 14.6 23.2 21.2 18.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 0.3 5.2 2.4 1.1 0.1 Delay(s) 22.4 11.6 19.8 26.2 22.4 18.9 Level of Service C B B C C B Approach Delay(s) 22.4 17.2 26.2 21.9 Approach LOS C B C C r HCM Average Control Delay 21.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 60.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 179 181 245 1564 270 396 185 206 364 189 1089 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1579 3283 1553 4894 1827 1553 1736 3471 1522 1719 3438 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1579 3283 1553 4894 1827 1553 1736 3471 1522 1719 3438 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 185 187 253 1612 278 408 191 212 375 195 1123 98 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 132 0 0 187 0 0 335 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow(vph) 120 252 121 1612 278 221 191 212 40 195 1123 43 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 3 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 11.0 12.7 12.7 37.3 39.0 39.0 Effective Green,g(s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 11.0 12.7 12.7 37.3 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 184 383 181 1631 609 518 159 367 161 534 1117 490 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.08 c0.08 c0.33 0.15 0.14 c0.11 0.06 0.11 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.99 0.46 0.43 1.20 0.58 0.25 0.37 1.01 0.09 Uniform Delay,d1 50.7 50.7 50.8 39.8 31.5 31.1 54.5 51.1 49.3 32.1 40.5 28.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.73 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.92 0.81 Incremental Delay,d2 6.2 3.1 7.4 15.3 0.1 0.1 135.7 1.4 0.3 1.6 26.1 0.3 Delay(s) 56.8 53.8 58.2 44.2 23.2 19.9 190.2 52.5 49.5 27.7 63.1 23.1 Level of Service E D E D C B F D D C E C Approach Delay(s) 56.2 37.4 84.9 55.5 Approach LOS E D F E r HCM Average Control Delay 51.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 64 326 26 445 706 396 91 142 328 608 594 435 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3400 4973 1719 3438 1538 3367 1827 2733 3335 3438 1512 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3400 4973 1719 3438 1538 3367 1827 2733 3335 3438 1512 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 66 336 27 459 728 408 94 146 338 627 612 448 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 6 0 0 0 300 0 0 49 0 0 190 Lane Group Flow(vph) 66 357 0 459 728 108 94 146 289 627 612 258 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 47.5 23.9 64.9 41.3 41.3 8.8 16.4 81.3 32.8 40.4 40.4 Effective Green,g(s) 47.5 23.9 64.9 41.3 41.3 8.8 16.4 81.3 32.8 40.4 40.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.15 0.42 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.11 0.52 0.21 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1035 762 715 910 407 190 192 1424 701 890 392 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.07 c0.27 c0.21 0.03 0.08 0.11 c0.19 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.47 0.64 0.80 0.27 0.49 0.76 0.20 0.89 0.69 0.66 Uniform Delay,d1 38.5 60.3 36.3 53.5 45.4 71.4 67.9 20.0 59.9 52.1 51.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.70 0.42 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 2.1 1.2 4.0 0.1 0.7 14.7 0.0 11.8 1.5 2.6 Delay(s) 38.6 62.3 37.5 46.3 31.4 72.2 82.6 20.0 64.6 37.8 24.5 Level of Service D E D D C E F C E D C Approach Delay(s) 58.7 40.0 44.3 44.2 Approach LOS E D D D r HCM Average Control Delay 44.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 118 423 1690 155 55 333 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 5085 4962 1752 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 5085 4962 1752 1517 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 122 436 1742 160 57 343 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 5 0 0 317 Lane Group Flow(vph) 122 436 1897 0 57 26 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 12.5 102.8 86.3 9.2 9.2 Effective Green,g(s) 12.5 102.8 86.3 9.2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.86 0.72 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 184 4356 3569 134 116 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.09 c0.38 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.10 0.53 0.43 0.23 Uniform Delay,d1 51.7 1.3 7.7 52.9 52.1 Progression Factor 0.73 0.25 0.51 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.9 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.4 Delay(s) 42.6 0.4 4.5 53.7 52.4 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay(s) 9.6 4.5 52.6 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 12.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB/Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 730 0 49 35 237 2 2 5 153 1869 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3367 1520 1736 1553 1667 1736 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3367 1520 1736 1553 1667 1813 2733 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 753 0 51 36 244 2 2 5 158 1927 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 35 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 132 Lane Group Flow(vph) 753 16 0 36 244 2 0 0 163 1795 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Perm custom Perm custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 50.4 50.4 6.2 95.0 1.1 85.8 136.2 Effective Green,g(s) 50.4 50.4 6.2 95.0 1.1 85.8 136.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.61 0.01 0.55 0.87 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1088 491 69 946 12 997 2386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 c0.02 0.16 c0.00 c0.66 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.03 0.52 0.26 0.17 0.16 0.75 Uniform Delay,d1 46.0 36.1 73.4 14.1 77.0 17.4 3.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 9.87 Incremental Delay,d2 1.6 0.0 3.3 0.7 2.4 0.2 0.6 Delay(s) 47.6 36.1 76.7 14.8 79.4 14.2 36.7 Level of Service D D E B E B D Approach Delay(s) 46.9 22.8 79.4 35.0 Approach LOS D C E C r HCM Average Control Delay 37.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 255 387 117 254 1338 321 270 240 52 175 610 341 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 *0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 4876 3400 4876 1752 3505 1568 1752 1789 2698 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 4876 3400 4876 1752 3505 1568 1752 1789 2698 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 263 399 121 262 1379 331 278 247 54 180 629 352 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 45 0 0 33 0 0 0 54 0 0 185 Lane Group Flow(vph) 263 475 0 262 1677 0 278 247 0 180 629 167 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 5 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Split NA Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 11.1 41.1 15.1 45.1 21.8 21.8 0.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green,g(s) 11.1 41.1 15.1 45.1 21.8 21.8 0.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.13 0.38 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 318 1670 428 1833 318 637 0 380 388 585 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.10 0.08 c0.34 c0.16 0.07 0.10 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.28 0.61 0.91 0.87 0.39 0.00 0.47 1.62 0.29 Uniform Delay,d1 53.5 28.7 49.7 35.6 47.8 43.2 60.0 41.0 47.0 39.2 Progression Factor 0.54 0.80 0.92 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 14.4 0.4 1.5 7.4 21.8 0.1 0.0 0.3 291.1 0.1 Delay(s) 43.1 23.3 47.2 41.4 69.5 43.4 60.0 41.4 338.1 39.3 Level of Service D C D D E D E D F D Approach Delay(s) 29.9 42.2 57.5 201.5 Approach LOS C D E F r HCM Average Control Delay 83.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 191 544 158 605 1247 97 159 216 119 96 884 187 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 5085 1509 3400 4971 1770 1863 1529 1770 3434 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 5085 1509 3400 4971 1770 1863 1529 1770 3434 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 197 561 163 624 1286 100 164 223 123 99 911 193 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 125 0 8 0 0 0 79 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 197 561 38 624 1378 0 164 223 44 99 1089 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 16.8 28.2 28.2 25.8 37.2 12.0 43.0 43.0 7.0 38.0 Effective Green,g(s) 16.8 28.2 28.2 25.8 37.2 12.0 43.0 43.0 7.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.31 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.32 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 248 1195 355 731 1541 177 668 548 103 1087 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.11 0.18 c0.28 c0.09 0.12 0.06 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.47 0.11 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.33 0.08 0.96 1.00 Uniform Delay,d1 49.9 39.5 36.0 45.3 39.5 53.6 28.1 25.4 56.4 41.0 Progression Factor 1.03 1.04 1.86 0.58 0.61 1.31 1.51 3.84 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 14.6 1.3 0.6 5.3 4.9 45.7 0.1 0.0 75.5 27.7 Delay(s) 66.1 42.5 67.6 31.4 29.1 115.8 42.5 97.8 131.8 68.7 Level of Service E D E C C F D F F E Approach Delay(s) 52.0 29.8 79.4 73.9 Approach LOS D C E E r HCM Average Control Delay 51.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 77 360 1515 30 27 249 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3495 1612 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3495 1612 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 79 371 1562 31 28 257 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 1 0 142 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 79 371 1592 0 143 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 8.4 97.0 84.6 15.0 Effective Green,g(s) 8.4 97.0 84.6 15.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.81 0.70 0.12 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 124 2861 2464 202 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.10 c0.46 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.64 0.13 0.65 0.71 Uniform Delay,d1 54.3 2.5 9.6 50.4 Progression Factor 1.12 0.37 0.66 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 10.0 0.1 1.2 10.8 Delay(s) 71.1 1.0 7.5 61.2 Level of Service E A A E Approach Delay(s) 13.3 7.5 61.2 Approach LOS B A E r HCM Average Control Delay 15.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21 : Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 433 45 48 1545 300 461 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4964 1752 5036 1752 2690 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4964 1752 5036 1752 2690 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 446 46 49 1593 309 475 RTOR Reduction(vph) 7 0 0 0 0 371 Lane Group Flow(vph) 485 0 49 1593 309 104 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 74.9 6.9 85.8 26.2 26.2 Effective Green,g(s) 74.9 6.9 85.8 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.06 0.71 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 3098 101 3601 383 587 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.03 c0.32 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.49 0.44 0.81 0.18 Uniform Delay,d1 9.4 54.8 7.1 44.5 38.1 Progression Factor 1.82 1.23 0.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.6 0.2 11.1 0.1 Delay(s) 17.2 68.1 0.7 55.6 38.2 Level of Service B E A E D Approach Delay(s) 17.2 2.8 45.1 Approach LOS B A D r HCM Average Control Delay 16.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Grandview Dr. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 117 266 1152 59 36 352 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.88 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 3479 1620 1504 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3539 3479 1620 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 121 274 1188 61 37 363 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 2 0 150 184 Lane Group Flow(vph) 121 274 1247 0 50 16 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 9.6 102.5 88.9 9.5 9.5 Effective Green,g(s) 9.6 102.5 88.9 9.5 9.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.85 0.74 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 275 3023 2577 128 119 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.08 c0.36 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.09 0.48 0.39 0.13 Uniform Delay,d1 52.6 1.4 6.3 52.5 51.4 Progression Factor 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 0.1 0.7 2.0 0.5 Delay(s) 43.4 0.3 6.9 54.5 51.9 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay(s) 13.5 6.9 53.2 Approach LOS B A D r HCM Average Control Delay 17.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 13 191 31 137 616 34 79 15 171 8 19 27 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.99 0.91 0.93 Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot) 3361 3386 1627 1675 Flt Permitted 0.92 0.85 0.89 0.94 Satd. Flow(perm) 3087 2903 1464 1587 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 13 197 32 141 635 35 81 15 176 8 20 28 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 88 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 227 0 0 806 0 0 184 0 0 35 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 20.3 20.3 10.1 10.1 Effective Green,g(s) 20.3 20.3 10.1 10.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1632 1535 385 417 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.28 c0.13 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.48 0.08 Uniform Delay,d1 4.6 5.9 11.9 10.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.1 Delay(s) 4.6 6.2 12.9 10.8 Level of Service A A B B Approach Delay(s) 4.6 6.2 12.9 10.8 Approach LOS A A B B r HCM Average Control Delay 7.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 38.4 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: I nt 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 248 325 788 1061 159 177 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3235 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3235 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 276 361 876 1179 177 197 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 242 0 0 154 Lane Group Flow(vph) 276 361 1813 0 177 43 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 16.9 70.0 49.1 22.0 22.0 Effective Green,g(s) 16.9 70.0 49.1 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.70 0.49 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 299 2477 1588 389 348 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.10 c0.56 c0.10 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.92 0.15 1.14 0.46 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 40.9 5.0 25.4 33.8 31.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 32.5 0.0 71.8 3.8 0.7 Delay(s) 73.4 5.0 97.2 37.6 32.0 Level of Service E A F D C Approach Delay(s) 34.7 97.2 34.7 Approach LOS C F C r HCM Average Control Delay 76.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035_PM_with Proj+Eccles-Forbes blvd.&Gull Dr. 4/2/2012 Baseline Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 0 9 68 568 0 0 Sign Control Yield Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 9 70 586 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 70 35 656 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 70 35 656 tC,single(s) 6.9 7.0 4.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 99 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 923 1027 921 Volume Total 9 47 219 390 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 9 0 195 390 cSH 1027 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.23 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay(s) 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay(s) 8.5 0.0 Approach LOS A r Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 699 107 85 1981 377 58 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3539 1540 1752 3505 3433 1559 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3539 1540 1752 3505 3433 1559 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 721 110 88 2042 389 60 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 45 0 0 0 34 Lane Group Flow(vph) 721 65 88 2042 389 26 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 92.3 92.3 29.6 119.5 21.6 21.6 Effective Green,g(s) 92.3 92.3 29.6 115.5 21.6 21.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.19 0.74 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2094 911 332 2595 475 216 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.05 c0.58 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.07 0.27 0.79 0.82 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 16.3 13.6 53.9 12.6 65.3 58.9 Progression Factor 0.86 0.94 1.49 0.23 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.8 10.0 0.1 Delay(s) 14.4 12.8 80.3 3.8 75.3 58.9 Level of Service B B F A E E Approach Delay(s) 14.2 6.9 73.2 Approach LOS B A E r HCM Average Control Delay 17.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 75 505 224 477 2615 24 1718 53 158 340 352 71 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 4821 1752 6337 3221 1621 1535 1611 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 4821 1752 6337 3221 1621 1535 1611 3902 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 77 521 231 492 2696 25 1771 55 163 351 363 73 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 77 752 0 492 2720 0 1222 604 95 351 363 73 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 6 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm custom custom custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 4 68 Actuated Green, G(s) 5.0 25.0 23.0 71.5 45.0 45.0 45.0 41.0 27.0 27.0 Effective Green,g(s) 5.0 25.0 23.0 71.5 45.0 45.0 45.0 41.0 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.46 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 57 773 258 2904 929 468 443 423 675 274 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.16 c0.28 c0.43 c0.38 0.37 0.09 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.22 v/c Ratio 1.35 0.97 1.91 0.94 1.32 1.29 0.21 0.83 0.54 0.27 Uniform Delay,d1 75.5 65.2 66.5 40.1 55.5 55.5 42.1 54.2 58.8 55.9 Progression Factor 0.61 0.63 0.93 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 229.6 24.1 409.5 0.7 149.6 146.1 0.1 12.7 0.4 0.2 Delay(s) 275.4 65.4 471.4 35.7 205.1 201.6 42.2 66.9 59.2 56.1 Level of Service F E F D F F D E E E Approach Delay(s) 84.9 102.4 190.7 Approach LOS F F F r HCM Average Control Delay 121.4 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.23 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 5 518 222 354 1418 1 415 2 122 2 4 36 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1523 1752 3504 3433 1564 1643 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 1523 1752 3504 2671 1564 1633 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 5 534 229 365 1462 1 428 2 126 2 4 37 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 30 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 5 534 128 365 1463 0 428 26 0 0 13 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 1.2 76.8 76.8 37.3 112.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 Effective Green,g(s) 1.2 76.8 76.8 37.3 112.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.24 0.72 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 14 1742 750 419 2536 512 300 313 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.15 c0.21 c0.42 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.16 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.31 0.17 0.87 0.58 0.84 0.09 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 77.0 23.7 21.9 57.0 10.2 60.7 51.8 51.4 Progression Factor 0.79 0.69 0.23 1.05 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 5.5 0.4 0.5 11.9 0.6 10.8 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 66.1 16.9 5.5 71.6 11.1 71.5 51.9 51.4 Level of Service E B A E B E D D Approach Delay(s) 13.8 23.2 67.0 51.4 Approach LOS B C E D r HCM Average Control Delay 28.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 224 450 588 1439 1061 2074 486 128 355 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3400 3134 1382 3335 3438 2651 3367 1827 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3400 3134 1382 3335 3438 2651 3367 1827 2733 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 231 464 606 1484 1094 2138 501 132 366 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 47 224 0 0 162 0 0 59 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 231 690 109 1484 1094 1976 501 132 307 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 11 8 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 10.6 43.8 43.8 72.6 105.8 105.8 27.1 27.1 103.7 Effective Green,g(s) 10.6 43.8 43.8 72.6 105.8 105.8 27.1 27.1 103.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.47 0.68 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.66 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 231 880 388 1552 2332 1798 585 317 1817 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.22 0.44 0.32 c0.15 0.07 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.75 v/c Ratio 1.00 0.78 0.28 0.96 0.47 1.10 0.86 0.42 0.17 Uniform Delay,d1 72.7 51.7 43.8 40.2 11.8 25.1 62.6 57.4 9.9 Progression Factor 1.01 1.11 2.42 0.93 0.80 0.72 0.63 0.57 2.30 Incremental Delay,d2 54.3 5.9 1.5 1.9 0.1 45.5 9.6 0.3 0.0 Delay(s) 128.1 63.3 107.4 39.3 9.5 63.5 49.0 32.9 22.7 Level of Service F E F D A E D C C Approach Delay(s) 86.1 43.3 37.3 0.0 Approach LOS F D D A r HCM Average Control Delay 50.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Oyster Point Blvd. & Veterans Blvd. (Base Option) II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 136 822 75 2 2339 24 498 7 15 11 5 279 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.86 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3488 1752 3505 1512 1770 1672 1681 1278 2664 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3488 1752 3505 1512 1770 1672 1681 1278 2664 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 140 847 77 2 2411 25 513 7 15 11 5 288 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 12 0 0 71 129 Lane Group Flow(vph) 140 920 0 2 2411 22 513 10 0 10 27 67 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 13 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 2 11 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 7.0 98.5 1.0 92.5 92.5 34.0 34.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Effective Green,g(s) 7.0 98.5 1.0 92.5 92.5 34.0 34.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.63 0.01 0.59 0.59 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.04 0.04 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 154 2202 11 2078 897 386 364 65 49 102 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.26 0.00 c0.69 c0.29 0.01 0.01 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.42 0.18 1.16 0.02 1.33 0.03 0.15 0.55 0.66 Uniform Delay,d1 74.2 14.4 77.1 31.8 13.1 61.0 48.0 72.5 73.7 74.0 Progression Factor 0.65 2.12 0.89 0.70 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 35.7 0.4 1.8 75.8 0.0 165.0 0.0 0.4 6.6 11.1 Delay(s) 83.9 30.9 70.2 97.9 11.7 226.0 48.0 72.9 80.2 85.1 Level of Service F C E F B F D E F F Approach Delay(s) 37.8 97.0 218.6 83.1 Approach LOS D F F F r HCM Average Control Delay 96.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 110.5% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 92 101 541 103 750 3 502 277 135 7 433 978 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 1863 2787 1770 5085 1537 3433 3346 1770 1863 2717 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 1863 2787 1770 5085 1537 3433 3346 1770 1863 2717 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 95 104 558 106 773 3 518 286 139 7 446 1008 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 245 0 0 2 0 50 0 0 0 200 Lane Group Flow(vph) 95 104 313 106 773 1 518 375 0 7 446 808 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 8 3 6 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 5 2 3 Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 27 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 7.0 11.8 49.4 18.1 22.9 22.9 33.6 64.4 9.7 40.5 40.5 Effective Green,g(s) 7.0 11.8 49.4 18.1 22.9 22.9 33.6 64.4 9.7 40.5 40.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.10 0.41 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.54 0.08 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 200 183 1147 267 970 293 961 1796 143 629 917 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.06 0.11 c0.06 c0.15 c0.15 0.11 0.00 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.57 0.27 0.40 0.80 0.00 0.54 0.21 0.05 0.71 0.88 Uniform Delay,d1 54.7 51.7 23.4 46.0 46.3 39.3 36.6 14.5 50.9 34.6 37.5 Progression Factor 0.92 0.69 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.72 1.20 1.17 1.23 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.1 1.6 5.3 Delay(s) 51.0 37.5 4.8 46.4 50.6 39.3 29.6 10.6 61.0 41.9 51.4 Level of Service D D A D D D C B E D D Approach Delay(s) 15.1 50.1 21.0 48.6 Approach LOS B D C D r HCM Average Control Delay 36.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 76 105 45 468 327 15 117 722 324 509 70 225 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1824 1543 1770 1844 1770 3539 1538 3399 2734 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1824 1543 1770 1844 1770 3539 1538 3399 2734 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 78 108 46 482 337 15 121 744 334 525 72 232 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 40 0 1 0 0 0 248 0 0 151 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 186 6 482 351 0 121 744 86 597 0 81 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 6 Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 3 2 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 16.6 16.6 32.5 51.9 12.0 30.9 30.9 26.0 26.0 Effective Green,g(s) 16.6 16.6 32.5 51.9 12.0 30.9 30.9 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.27 0.43 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 252 213 479 798 177 911 396 736 592 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.27 0.19 0.07 c0.21 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.03 1.01 0.44 0.68 0.82 0.22 0.81 0.14 Uniform Delay,d1 49.6 44.7 43.8 23.9 52.2 41.9 35.0 44.7 37.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.53 1.15 0.90 1.40 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 9.3 0.0 38.8 1.4 7.7 7.4 1.1 6.4 0.0 Delay(s) 58.9 44.8 71.9 14.2 67.9 45.2 50.2 51.1 38.0 Level of Service E D E B E D D D D Approach Delay(s) 56.1 47.5 48.9 47.4 Approach LOS E D D D r HCM Average Control Delay 48.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035 Without Project+ Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 249 424 86 241 157 73 35 453 215 777 527 129 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1646 1339 3060 1660 1385 1533 3065 1371 3001 2963 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1646 1339 3060 1660 1385 1533 3065 1371 3001 2963 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 257 437 89 248 162 75 36 467 222 801 543 133 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 22 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 694 67 248 162 8 36 467 222 801 655 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 45 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 3 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 7 Actuated Green, G(s) 32.3 32.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.9 17.7 28.7 29.0 37.8 Effective Green,g(s) 32.3 32.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.9 17.7 28.7 29.0 37.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.36 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 502 408 318 172 144 129 512 371 821 1057 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 0.08 c0.10 0.02 c0.15 0.16 c0.27 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.38 0.17 0.78 0.94 0.05 0.28 0.91 0.60 0.98 0.62 Uniform Delay,d1 36.9 27.0 46.3 47.2 42.8 45.5 43.4 33.6 38.1 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.07 2.00 0.95 0.94 0.86 0.90 0.95 Incremental Delay,d2 184.2 0.1 11.3 51.2 0.2 1.1 19.4 2.0 22.9 2.3 Delay(s) 221.1 27.1 61.3 101.5 85.7 44.4 60.1 31.0 57.2 29.0 Level of Service F C E F F D E C E C Approach Delay(s) 199.0 78.5 50.4 44.3 Approach LOS F E D D r HCM Average Control Delay 85.3 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.11 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 125 779 166 65 35 136 0 0 529 58 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 *0.85 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.86 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1565 2769 1733 3371 3438 1450 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1565 2769 1733 3371 3438 1450 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 129 803 171 67 36 140 0 0 545 60 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 129 803 228 0 0 176 0 0 545 13 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Split Split Perm Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 13.1 58.3 58.3 13.1 22.6 22.6 Effective Green,g(s) 13.1 56.3 58.3 13.1 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.53 0.55 0.12 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 193 1471 953 417 733 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.29 0.13 0.05 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.55 0.24 0.42 0.74 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 44.4 16.4 12.4 42.9 39.0 33.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 6.6 1.5 0.6 0.0 4.1 0.1 Delay(s) 51.0 17.9 12.9 30.6 43.1 33.2 Level of Service D B B C D C Approach Delay(s) 51.0 16.7 30.6 42.1 Approach LOS D B C D r HCM Average Control Delay 28.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 135 219 129 442 219 182 213 160 513 163 724 74 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1564 3279 1538 4848 1810 1538 1703 3406 1494 1719 3438 1510 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1564 3279 1538 4848 1810 1538 1703 3406 1494 1719 3438 1510 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 139 226 133 456 226 188 220 165 529 168 746 76 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 117 0 0 129 0 0 466 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow(vph) 118 247 16 456 226 59 220 165 63 168 746 30 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 3 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.2 12.7 12.7 46.6 42.1 42.1 Effective Green,g(s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.2 12.7 12.7 46.6 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.44 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 189 396 186 819 306 260 276 408 179 756 1365 600 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.08 0.01 0.09 c0.12 0.04 c0.13 0.05 0.10 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.09 0.56 0.74 0.23 0.80 0.40 0.35 0.22 0.55 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 44.3 44.3 41.4 40.4 41.8 38.1 42.7 43.2 42.9 18.4 24.6 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.89 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.39 0.34 Incremental Delay,d2 4.6 2.2 0.1 0.5 7.7 0.2 13.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.3 0.1 Delay(s) 48.9 46.5 41.5 35.9 44.7 41.3 56.5 43.4 43.3 7.2 10.9 6.7 Level of Service D D D D D D E D D A B A Approach Delay(s) 45.7 39.3 46.5 10.0 Approach LOS D D D A r HCM Average Control Delay 33.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 104 1087 54 211 230 188 60 262 686 838 323 177 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3335 4901 1736 3471 1553 3303 1792 2682 3335 3438 1514 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 4901 1736 3471 1553 3303 1792 2682 3335 3438 1514 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 107 1121 56 218 237 194 62 270 707 864 333 182 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 5 0 0 0 173 0 0 11 0 0 113 Lane Group Flow(vph) 107 1172 0 218 237 21 62 270 696 864 333 69 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.2 27.8 14.0 11.6 11.6 5.5 16.5 30.5 28.7 39.7 39.7 Effective Green,g(s) 30.2 27.8 14.0 11.6 11.6 5.5 16.5 30.5 28.7 39.7 39.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.26 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.16 0.29 0.27 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 959 1298 231 383 172 173 282 779 912 1300 572 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.24 c0.13 0.07 0.02 c0.15 0.26 c0.26 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.90 0.94 0.62 0.12 0.36 0.96 0.89 0.95 0.26 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 27.5 37.3 45.1 44.6 42.1 48.0 43.9 35.7 37.4 22.5 21.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.51 1.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.74 1.05 Incremental Delay,d2 0.2 10.4 42.2 2.0 0.1 0.5 41.4 12.4 16.1 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 27.8 47.7 66.1 24.7 63.6 48.5 85.3 48.1 46.9 16.8 22.4 Level of Service C D E C E D F D D B C Approach Delay(s) 46.0 50.2 57.8 36.4 Approach LOS D D E D r HCM Average Control Delay 46.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 105.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 85 1331 606 48 98 105 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 4988 4817 1719 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 4988 4817 1719 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 88 1372 625 49 101 108 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 4 0 0 97 Lane Group Flow(vph) 88 1372 670 0 101 11 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.6 87.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Effective Green,g(s) 8.6 85.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.81 0.71 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 141 4019 3399 172 150 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.28 0.14 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.34 0.20 0.59 0.07 Uniform Delay,d1 47.1 2.8 5.3 45.6 43.2 Progression Factor 0.79 2.59 0.59 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.1 Delay(s) 37.6 7.2 3.3 48.9 43.3 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay(s) 9.0 3.3 46.0 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 10.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB/Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 1870 0 92 14 102 1 3 3 129 1192 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 1551 1770 1583 1630 1770 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 1551 1770 1583 1630 1857 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 1928 0 95 14 105 1 3 3 133 1229 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 43 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 138 Lane Group Flow(vph) 1928 52 0 14 105 1 0 0 136 1091 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type Perm custom Perm custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 58.0 58.0 2.0 36.7 0.8 31.7 93.2 Effective Green,g(s) 58.0 58.0 2.0 36.7 0.8 31.7 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.02 0.35 0.01 0.30 0.89 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1896 857 34 553 12 561 2474 v/s Ratio Prot c0.56 c0.01 0.07 c0.00 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 1.02 0.06 0.41 0.19 0.09 0.24 0.44 Uniform Delay,d1 23.5 10.9 50.9 23.8 51.7 27.6 1.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 20.62 Incremental Delay,d2 25.0 0.0 2.9 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.0 Delay(s) 48.5 10.9 53.9 24.6 52.9 18.4 22.5 Level of Service D B D C D B C Approach Delay(s) 46.7 28.0 52.9 22.1 Approach LOS D C D C r HCM Average Control Delay 36.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 105.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 908 2129 247 30 371 110 121 169 517 204 175 138 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 4992 3400 4848 1752 3505 1535 1752 1845 2698 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 4992 3400 4848 1752 3505 1535 1752 1845 2698 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 936 2195 255 31 382 113 125 174 533 210 180 142 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 13 0 0 51 0 0 0 146 0 0 120 Lane Group Flow(vph) 936 2437 0 31 444 0 125 174 387 210 180 22 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 5 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 27.0 41.4 3.6 18.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 Effective Green,g(s) 27.0 41.4 3.6 18.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.39 0.03 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 874 1950 115 823 468 936 410 276 291 425 v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 c0.49 0.01 c0.09 0.07 0.05 c0.12 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.07 1.25 0.27 0.54 0.27 0.19 0.94 0.76 0.62 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 39.5 32.3 49.9 40.2 30.7 30.0 38.1 42.7 41.7 37.9 Progression Factor 0.73 0.70 0.73 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 34.5 112.8 0.5 2.5 0.1 0.0 30.1 10.6 2.7 0.0 Delay(s) 63.4 135.4 36.7 31.5 30.8 30.0 68.2 53.3 44.4 37.9 Level of Service E F D C C C E D D D Approach Delay(s) 115.5 31.8 54.6 46.2 Approach LOS F C D D r HCM Average Control Delay 90.6 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 228 2100 88 246 341 43 79 145 927 257 198 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 5085 1519 3400 4937 1752 1845 1517 1752 3413 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 5085 1519 3400 4937 1752 1845 1517 1752 3413 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 235 2165 91 254 352 44 81 149 956 265 204 36 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 27 0 14 0 0 0 113 0 16 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 235 2165 64 254 382 0 81 149 843 265 224 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 17.9 45.0 45.0 8.0 35.1 25.7 29.0 29.0 8.0 11.3 Effective Green,g(s) 17.9 43.0 45.0 8.0 35.1 25.7 29.0 29.0 8.0 11.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.41 0.42 0.08 0.33 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.11 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 299 2063 645 257 1635 425 505 415 132 364 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.43 c0.07 0.08 0.05 0.08 c0.15 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.56 v/c Ratio 0.79 1.05 0.10 0.99 0.23 0.19 0.30 2.03 2.01 0.62 Uniform Delay,d1 42.2 31.5 18.3 49.0 25.7 31.9 30.4 38.5 49.0 45.3 Progression Factor 1.15 1.08 1.26 1.40 1.66 0.80 0.80 0.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 8.7 31.6 0.2 49.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 470.8 479.1 2.2 Delay(s) 57.2 65.7 23.3 118.4 42.9 25.7 24.3 500.5 528.1 47.4 Level of Service E E C F D C C F F D Approach Delay(s) 63.4 72.4 408.2 299.7 Approach LOS E E F F r HCM Average Control Delay 173.9 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.45 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 125.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 341 2428 339 17 16 66 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3479 1628 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3479 1628 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 352 2503 349 18 16 68 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 3 0 64 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 352 2503 364 0 20 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 26.1 91.7 61.6 6.3 Effective Green,g(s) 26.1 91.7 61.6 6.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.87 0.58 0.06 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 436 3062 2022 97 v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.71 0.10 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.81 0.82 0.18 0.21 Uniform Delay,d1 37.6 3.3 10.4 47.5 Progression Factor 1.25 0.89 0.47 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 6.5 1.5 0.2 1.1 Delay(s) 53.4 4.5 5.1 48.5 Level of Service D A A D Approach Delay(s) 10.5 5.1 48.5 Approach LOS B A D r HCM Average Control Delay 10.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 85 1331 606 48 98 105 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 4988 4817 1719 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 4988 4817 1719 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 88 1372 625 49 101 108 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 4 0 0 97 Lane Group Flow(vph) 88 1372 670 0 101 11 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.6 87.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Effective Green,g(s) 8.6 85.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.81 0.71 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 141 4019 3399 172 150 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.28 0.14 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.34 0.20 0.59 0.07 Uniform Delay,d1 47.1 2.8 5.3 45.6 43.2 Progression Factor 0.79 2.59 0.59 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.1 Delay(s) 37.6 7.2 3.3 48.9 43.3 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay(s) 9.0 3.3 46.0 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 10.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Grandview Dr. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 480 1964 258 53 68 98 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 3415 1718 1490 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3539 3415 1718 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 495 2025 266 55 70 101 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 22 0 10 74 Lane Group Flow(vph) 495 2025 299 0 79 8 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 44.2 87.8 39.6 10.2 10.2 Effective Green,g(s) 44.2 87.8 39.6 10.2 10.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.83 0.37 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1431 2931 1276 165 143 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.57 0.09 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.69 0.23 0.48 0.06 Uniform Delay,d1 21.1 3.7 22.8 45.4 43.5 Progression Factor 0.79 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.8 0.4 2.2 0.2 Delay(s) 16.6 3.2 23.2 47.6 43.7 Level of Service B A C D D Approach Delay(s) 5.8 23.2 45.7 Approach LOS A C D r HCM Average Control Delay 9.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 22 694 95 178 164 13 66 9 145 26 13 11 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.99 0.91 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 3472 3434 1672 1762 Flt Permitted 0.94 0.59 0.88 0.85 Satd. Flow(perm) 3275 2072 1500 1536 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 23 715 98 184 169 13 68 9 149 27 13 11 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 13 0 0 3 0 0 100 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 823 0 0 363 0 0 126 0 0 43 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 19.0 19.0 8.3 8.3 Effective Green,g(s) 19.0 19.0 8.3 8.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1763 1115 353 361 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.18 c0.08 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.33 0.36 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 5.0 4.6 11.3 10.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 Delay(s) 5.2 4.7 11.9 10.8 Level of Service A A B B Approach Delay(s) 5.2 4.7 11.9 10.8 Approach LOS A A B B r HCM Average Control Delay 6.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 35.3 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: I nt 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 44 1085 434 456 1852 306 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3267 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3267 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 49 1206 482 507 2058 340 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 186 0 0 67 Lane Group Flow(vph) 49 1206 803 0 2058 273 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 4.0 25.8 17.8 66.2 66.2 Effective Green,g(s) 4.0 25.8 17.8 66.2 66.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.18 0.66 0.66 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 71 913 582 1172 1048 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.34 0.25 c1.16 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.69 1.32 1.38 1.76 0.26 Uniform Delay,d1 47.4 37.1 41.1 16.9 6.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 25.1 152.1 181.6 343.7 0.6 Delay(s) 72.5 189.2 222.7 360.6 7.5 Level of Service E F F F A Approach Delay(s) 184.7 222.7 310.6 Approach LOS F F F r HCM Average Control Delay 257.8 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.63 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 142.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035_AM_with Proj+Eccles-Forbes blvd.&Gull Dr. 4/2/2012 Baseline Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 0 23 856 1334 0 0 Sign Control Yield Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 24 882 1375 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 882 441 2258 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 882 441 2258 tC,single(s) 6.9 7.0 4.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 96 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 280 556 214 Volume Total 24 588 753 917 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 24 0 458 917 cSH 556 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.35 0.44 0.54 Queue Length 95th(ft) 3 0 0 0 Control Delay(s) 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay(s) 11.8 0.0 Approach LOS B r Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 2626 351 54 585 87 52 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3465 1752 3505 3433 1559 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3465 1752 3505 3433 1559 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 2707 362 56 603 90 54 RTOR Reduction(vph) 7 0 0 0 0 45 Lane Group Flow(vph) 3062 0 56 603 90 9 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 91.0 17.7 101.7 24.8 24.8 Effective Green,g(s) 91.0 17.7 101.7 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.12 0.68 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2102 207 2376 568 258 v/s Ratio Prot c0.88 c0.03 c0.17 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.46 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.03 Uniform Delay,d1 29.5 60.3 9.4 53.7 52.6 Progression Factor 0.75 1.54 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 206.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 228.5 93.0 3.7 53.7 52.6 Level of Service F F A D D Approach Delay(s) 228.5 11.3 53.3 Approach LOS F B D r HCM Average Control Delay 185.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 150.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 266 1604 571 109 712 12 276 40 199 153 1846 622 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.86 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 4864 1752 6330 4942 1571 1596 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 4864 1752 6330 4942 1571 1596 3902 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 274 1654 589 112 734 12 285 41 205 158 1903 641 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 142 0 106 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 274 2243 0 112 745 0 285 104 0 52 1903 641 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 6 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Split custom custom custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 68 Actuated Green, G(s) 12.0 35.6 7.0 75.7 13.7 13.7 41.1 43.6 43.6 Effective Green,g(s) 12.0 35.6 7.0 75.7 13.7 13.7 41.1 43.6 43.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.28 0.06 0.60 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 169 1375 97 3806 538 171 521 1351 548 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.46 0.06 0.12 0.06 c0.07 c0.49 0.40 v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 v/c Ratio 1.62 1.63 1.15 0.20 0.53 0.61 0.10 1.41 1.17 Uniform Delay,d1 57.0 45.1 59.5 11.3 53.1 53.5 29.5 41.1 41.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 305.1 287.4 139.0 0.0 0.4 4.2 0.1 188.3 94.6 Delay(s) 362.0 332.6 198.4 11.4 53.5 57.7 29.6 229.5 135.8 Level of Service F F F B D E C F F Approach Delay(s) 335.8 35.8 55.5 Approach LOS F D E r HCM Average Control Delay 217.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.31 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 125.9 Sum of lost time(s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 145.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 27 1612 867 71 383 0 214 3 216 0 3 7 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 *0.85 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1306 1752 3505 3433 1565 1687 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 1863 1306 1752 3505 2714 1565 1687 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 28 1662 894 73 395 0 221 3 223 0 3 7 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 145 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 28 1662 765 73 395 0 221 81 0 0 4 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 2.0 44.4 44.4 7.8 50.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 Effective Green,g(s) 2.0 44.4 44.4 7.8 50.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.59 0.59 0.10 0.67 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 47 1103 773 182 2346 391 225 243 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.89 c0.04 0.11 0.05 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.59 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.60 1.51 0.99 0.40 0.17 0.57 0.36 0.02 Uniform Delay,d1 36.1 15.3 15.1 31.4 4.6 29.9 29.0 27.5 Progression Factor 0.98 1.48 1.80 0.98 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.9 229.8 17.5 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.0 Delay(s) 40.4 252.4 44.7 31.2 3.2 31.0 29.3 27.6 Level of Service D F D C A C C C Approach Delay(s) 178.2 7.6 30.2 27.6 Approach LOS F A C C r HCM Average Control Delay 136.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.21 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 75.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 629 966 1016 308 239 515 390 110 1475 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3335 3124 1365 3367 3471 2674 3367 1827 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3124 1365 3367 3471 2674 3367 1827 2733 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 648 996 1047 318 246 531 402 113 1521 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 40 365 0 0 402 0 0 37 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 648 1375 263 318 246 129 402 113 1485 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 11 8 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 29.0 44.0 44.0 10.5 25.5 25.5 38.0 38.0 52.5 Effective Green,g(s) 29.0 44.0 44.0 10.5 25.5 25.5 38.0 38.0 52.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.50 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 921 1309 572 337 843 649 1219 661 1367 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.44 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.06 c0.54 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.70 1.05 0.46 0.94 0.29 0.20 0.33 0.17 1.09 Uniform Delay,d1 34.1 30.5 22.0 47.0 32.4 31.6 24.3 22.8 26.2 Progression Factor 0.80 0.74 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.24 0.64 Incremental Delay,d2 0.9 30.8 1.0 34.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 42.9 Delay(s) 28.2 53.4 19.6 81.0 33.3 32.3 29.3 28.4 59.6 Level of Service C D B F C C C C E Approach Delay(s) 39.4 46.7 51.9 0.0 Approach LOS D D D A r HCM Average Control Delay 45.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 105.0 Sum of lost time(s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Oyster Point Blvd. & Veterans Blvd. (Base Option) II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 318 2945 404 6 652 16 90 4 3 21 2 91 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.86 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.87 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3465 1752 3505 1514 1770 1743 1681 1294 2662 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3465 1752 3505 1514 1770 1743 1681 1294 2662 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 328 3036 416 6 672 16 93 4 3 22 2 94 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 28 63 Lane Group Flow(vph) 328 3447 0 6 672 10 93 4 0 20 5 2 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 13 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 2 11 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 18.6 114.9 1.0 97.3 97.3 11.9 11.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 Effective Green,g(s) 18.6 114.9 1.0 97.3 97.3 11.9 11.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.77 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 426 2654 12 2274 982 140 138 64 49 101 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.99 0.00 c0.19 c0.05 0.00 c0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.77 1.30 0.50 0.30 0.01 0.66 0.03 0.31 0.10 0.02 Uniform Delay,d1 63.6 17.5 74.3 11.5 9.3 67.1 63.7 70.2 69.7 69.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.58 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 7.4 137.4 11.3 0.3 0.0 8.8 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 Delay(s) 71.0 154.9 71.3 7.0 5.0 76.0 63.8 71.3 70.0 69.5 Level of Service E F E A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 147.7 7.5 75.1 70.0 Approach LOS F A E E r HCM Average Control Delay 123.4 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.16 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 150.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 120.5% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. II 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 123 247 525 24 106 7 448 942 787 6 178 289 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3400 1845 2760 1752 5036 1518 3400 3240 1752 1845 2687 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3400 1845 2760 1752 5036 1518 3400 3240 1752 1845 2687 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 127 255 541 25 109 7 462 971 811 6 184 298 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 158 0 0 7 0 117 0 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 127 255 383 25 109 0 462 1665 0 6 184 43 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 8 3 6 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 5 2 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 27 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 14.8 18.1 75.0 3.6 6.9 6.9 52.9 67.1 1.2 15.4 15.4 Effective Green,g(s) 14.8 18.1 75.0 3.6 6.9 6.9 52.9 67.1 1.2 15.4 15.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.17 0.71 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.63 0.01 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 475 315 1953 60 328 99 1697 2051 20 268 390 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.14 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.14 c0.51 0.00 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.81 0.20 0.42 0.33 0.00 0.27 0.81 0.30 0.69 0.11 Uniform Delay,d1 40.8 42.3 5.3 50.2 47.3 46.3 15.4 14.7 52.0 43.0 39.4 Progression Factor 0.91 0.82 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.71 1.07 0.74 1.35 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 11.8 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.0 6.8 4.7 0.0 Delay(s) 37.1 46.6 2.0 51.9 47.6 46.3 13.1 12.4 62.6 36.7 53.3 Level of Service D D A D D D B B E D D Approach Delay(s) 19.1 48.3 12.5 47.2 Approach LOS B D B D r HCM Average Control Delay 19.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. II 4/5/2012 t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 19 65 28 219 280 15 94 544 104 1619 87 445 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1824 1530 1752 1823 1752 3505 1568 3390 2760 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1824 1530 1752 1823 1752 3505 1568 3390 2760 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 20 67 29 226 289 15 97 561 107 1669 90 459 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 27 0 2 0 0 0 107 0 0 87 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 87 2 226 302 0 97 561 0 1759 0 372 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 8.4 8.4 10.5 19.4 7.0 15.4 0.0 57.7 57.7 Effective Green,g(s) 8.4 8.4 10.5 19.4 7.0 15.4 0.0 57.7 57.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 145 121 174 334 116 509 0 1845 1502 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.13 0.17 0.06 c0.16 c0.52 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.02 1.30 0.91 0.84 1.10 0.00 0.95 0.25 Uniform Delay,d1 47.2 45.0 47.8 42.4 48.9 45.3 53.0 22.9 12.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.08 0.99 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.4 0.0 163.7 25.5 36.2 70.4 0.0 12.5 0.4 Delay(s) 51.6 45.0 215.6 71.4 84.8 120.0 53.0 35.4 13.1 Level of Service D D F E F F D D B Approach Delay(s) 49.9 132.9 106.2 30.8 Approach LOS D F F C r HCM Average Control Delay 62.2 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles A.M. Peak Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 192 154 76 840 572 233 45 527 170 243 365 146 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1631 1281 3060 1660 1392 1562 3124 1398 3001 2898 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1631 1281 3060 1660 1392 1562 3124 1398 3001 2898 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 198 159 78 866 590 240 46 543 175 251 376 151 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 33 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 37 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 357 45 866 590 104 46 543 175 251 490 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 45 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 3 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 7 Actuated Green, G(s) 19.7 19.7 48.2 48.2 48.2 8.6 23.4 75.6 12.7 27.5 Effective Green,g(s) 19.7 19.7 48.2 48.2 48.2 8.6 23.4 75.6 12.7 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.19 0.63 0.11 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 268 210 1229 667 559 112 609 881 318 664 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.28 c0.36 0.03 c0.17 0.13 0.08 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 1.33 0.22 0.70 0.88 0.19 0.41 0.89 0.20 0.79 0.74 Uniform Delay,d1 50.1 43.5 30.0 33.3 23.2 53.3 47.1 9.4 52.3 42.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.49 1.02 1.01 1.21 1.11 0.93 Incremental Delay,d2 172.7 0.4 1.2 9.4 0.1 2.3 14.4 0.1 11.7 6.9 Delay(s) 222.9 43.8 31.5 43.7 34.7 56.8 61.9 11.4 69.7 46.7 Level of Service F D C D C E E B E D Approach Delay(s) 190.8 36.2 50.0 54.1 Approach LOS F D D D r HCM Average Control Delay 61.2 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 93 253 387 108 112 316 0 0 408 61 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.86 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1580 3367 1767 3426 3438 1471 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1580 3367 1767 3426 3438 1471 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 96 261 399 111 115 326 0 0 421 63 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 96 261 495 0 0 441 0 0 421 13 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Split Split Perm Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 10.8 24.5 24.5 10.8 12.7 12.7 Effective Green,g(s) 10.8 24.5 24.5 10.8 12.7 12.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 284 1375 722 617 728 311 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.08 c0.28 c0.13 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.19 0.69 0.71 0.58 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 21.5 11.4 14.6 23.2 21.2 18.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 0.3 5.2 2.2 1.1 0.1 Delay(s) 22.4 11.7 19.8 27.2 22.4 18.9 Level of Service C B B C C B Approach Delay(s) 22.4 17.1 27.2 21.9 Approach LOS C B C C r HCM Average Control Delay 21.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 60.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 179 181 245 1674 270 396 185 206 364 189 1199 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1579 3283 1553 4894 1827 1553 1736 3471 1522 1719 3438 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1579 3283 1553 4894 1827 1553 1736 3471 1522 1719 3438 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 185 187 253 1726 278 408 191 212 375 195 1236 98 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 130 0 0 187 0 0 335 0 0 50 Lane Group Flow(vph) 120 252 123 1726 278 221 191 212 40 195 1236 48 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 3 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 11.0 12.7 12.7 37.3 39.0 39.0 Effective Green,g(s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 11.0 12.7 12.7 37.3 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 184 383 181 1631 609 518 159 367 161 534 1117 490 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.08 c0.08 c0.35 0.15 0.14 c0.11 0.06 0.11 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.66 0.68 1.06 0.46 0.43 1.20 0.58 0.25 0.37 1.11 0.10 Uniform Delay,d1 50.7 50.7 50.9 40.0 31.5 31.1 54.5 51.1 49.3 32.1 40.5 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.74 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.87 0.68 Incremental Delay,d2 6.2 3.1 8.1 34.8 0.1 0.1 135.7 1.4 0.3 1.5 58.9 0.3 Delay(s) 56.8 53.8 59.0 63.9 23.3 20.6 190.2 52.5 49.5 25.7 93.9 19.4 Level of Service E D E E C C F D D C F B Approach Delay(s) 56.5 51.9 84.9 80.4 Approach LOS E D F F r HCM Average Control Delay 65.4 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 64 333 26 445 761 396 91 142 328 608 594 435 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3400 4975 1719 3438 1538 3367 1827 2733 3335 3438 1512 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3400 4975 1719 3438 1538 3367 1827 2733 3335 3438 1512 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 66 343 27 459 785 408 94 146 338 627 612 448 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 5 0 0 0 292 0 0 56 0 0 178 Lane Group Flow(vph) 66 365 0 459 785 116 94 146 282 627 612 270 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 44.6 37.9 51.0 44.3 44.3 8.8 16.4 67.4 32.7 40.3 40.3 Effective Green,g(s) 44.6 37.9 51.0 44.3 44.3 8.8 16.4 67.4 32.7 40.3 40.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.24 0.33 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.11 0.43 0.21 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 972 1209 562 976 437 190 192 1181 699 888 391 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.07 c0.27 c0.23 0.03 0.08 0.10 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.30 0.82 0.80 0.27 0.49 0.76 0.24 0.90 0.69 0.69 Uniform Delay,d1 40.6 48.2 48.2 51.8 43.2 71.4 67.9 28.1 60.0 52.2 52.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.80 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.70 0.43 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.6 7.0 3.8 0.1 0.7 14.7 0.0 12.1 1.5 3.6 Delay(s) 40.7 48.9 53.8 45.2 28.8 72.2 82.6 28.1 64.9 37.9 26.0 Level of Service D D D D C E F C E D C Approach Delay(s) 47.6 43.5 49.0 44.8 Approach LOS D D D D r HCM Average Control Delay 45.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 118 449 2001 155 55 333 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 *0.85 *0.85 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 4750 4226 1752 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 4750 4226 1752 1517 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 122 463 2063 160 57 343 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 3 0 0 317 Lane Group Flow(vph) 122 463 2220 0 57 26 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 11.0 102.8 87.8 9.2 9.2 Effective Green,g(s) 11.0 102.8 85.8 9.2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.86 0.71 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 162 4069 3022 134 116 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.10 c0.53 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.11 0.73 0.43 0.23 Uniform Delay,d1 53.2 1.4 10.3 52.9 52.1 Progression Factor 0.88 0.19 0.56 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 10.6 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.4 Delay(s) 57.7 0.3 7.2 53.7 52.4 Level of Service E A A D D Approach Delay(s) 12.3 7.2 52.6 Approach LOS B A D r HCM Average Control Delay 13.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB/Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 759 0 49 35 237 2 2 5 153 2088 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3367 1520 1736 1553 1664 1736 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3367 1520 1736 1553 1664 1813 2733 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 782 0 51 36 244 2 2 5 158 2153 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 36 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 125 Lane Group Flow(vph) 782 15 0 36 244 2 0 0 163 2028 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Perm custom Perm custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 46.4 46.4 5.4 99.3 0.8 90.9 137.3 Effective Green,g(s) 46.4 46.4 5.4 99.3 0.8 90.9 137.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.64 0.01 0.58 0.88 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1001 452 60 989 9 1056 2405 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.02 0.16 c0.00 c0.74 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.03 0.60 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.84 Uniform Delay,d1 50.2 38.9 74.2 12.2 77.3 14.9 4.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 9.41 Incremental Delay,d2 3.7 0.0 10.3 0.6 4.5 0.1 0.8 Delay(s) 53.9 38.9 84.5 12.8 81.8 13.7 41.7 Level of Service D D F B F B D Approach Delay(s) 53.0 22.0 81.8 39.8 Approach LOS D C F D r HCM Average Control Delay 41.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 282 413 117 254 1541 321 270 240 52 175 610 543 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 *0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 4886 3400 4894 1752 3505 1568 1752 1789 2698 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 4886 3400 4894 1752 3505 1568 1752 1789 2698 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 291 426 121 262 1589 331 278 247 54 180 629 560 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 41 0 0 26 0 0 0 54 0 0 284 Lane Group Flow(vph) 291 506 0 262 1894 0 278 247 0 180 629 276 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 5 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Split NA Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 11.9 41.2 15.0 44.3 21.8 21.8 0.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green,g(s) 11.9 41.2 15.0 44.3 21.8 21.8 0.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.34 0.12 0.37 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 340 1678 425 1807 318 637 0 380 388 585 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.10 0.08 c0.39 c0.16 0.07 0.10 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.30 0.62 1.05 0.87 0.39 0.00 0.47 1.62 0.47 Uniform Delay,d1 53.2 28.9 49.8 37.9 47.8 43.2 60.0 41.0 47.0 41.0 Progression Factor 0.50 0.74 0.84 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 16.8 0.4 1.4 32.5 21.8 0.1 0.0 0.3 291.1 0.2 Delay(s) 43.4 21.7 43.0 65.0 69.5 43.4 60.0 41.4 338.1 41.2 Level of Service D C D E E D E D F D Approach Delay(s) 29.2 62.3 57.5 177.7 Approach LOS C E E F r HCM Average Control Delay 88.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 194 597 158 715 1542 97 159 216 119 96 884 203 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 5085 1508 3400 4983 1770 1863 2691 3433 3427 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 5085 1508 3400 4983 1770 1863 2691 3433 3427 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 200 615 163 737 1590 100 164 223 123 99 911 209 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 128 0 5 0 0 0 79 0 16 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 200 615 35 737 1685 0 164 223 44 99 1104 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 16.0 25.5 25.5 28.5 38.0 12.0 43.2 43.2 6.8 38.0 Effective Green,g(s) 16.0 25.5 25.5 28.5 38.0 12.0 43.2 43.2 6.8 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.32 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.32 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 236 1081 320 808 1578 177 671 969 195 1085 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.12 0.22 c0.34 c0.09 0.12 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.57 0.11 0.91 1.07 0.93 0.33 0.05 0.51 1.02 Uniform Delay,d1 50.8 42.3 38.1 44.5 41.0 53.6 27.9 25.0 55.0 41.0 Progression Factor 1.10 1.12 1.73 0.60 0.64 1.31 1.51 3.85 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 22.1 2.1 0.7 6.2 36.0 46.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 31.7 Delay(s) 78.1 49.6 66.4 33.0 62.1 116.3 42.3 96.2 55.7 72.7 Level of Service E D E C E F D F E E Approach Delay(s) 58.3 53.3 79.1 71.3 Approach LOS E D E E r HCM Average Control Delay 61.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 81 382 1718 30 27 249 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3496 1612 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3496 1612 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 84 394 1771 31 28 257 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 1 0 129 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 84 394 1801 0 156 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 8.1 96.2 84.1 15.8 Effective Green,g(s) 8.1 96.2 84.1 15.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.80 0.70 0.13 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 119 2837 2450 212 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.11 c0.52 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.71 0.14 0.74 0.73 Uniform Delay,d1 54.8 2.7 11.1 50.1 Progression Factor 1.23 0.39 0.61 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 16.8 0.1 1.7 12.4 Delay(s) 84.3 1.1 8.5 62.4 Level of Service F A A E Approach Delay(s) 15.8 8.5 62.4 Approach LOS B A E r HCM Average Control Delay 15.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21 : Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 459 45 48 1856 300 490 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4970 1752 5036 1752 2690 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4970 1752 5036 1752 2690 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 473 46 49 1913 309 505 RTOR Reduction(vph) 7 0 0 0 0 398 Lane Group Flow(vph) 512 0 49 1913 309 107 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 74.7 6.9 85.6 26.4 26.4 Effective Green,g(s) 72.7 6.9 83.6 26.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.06 0.70 0.22 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 3011 101 3508 385 569 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.03 c0.38 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.49 0.55 0.80 0.19 Uniform Delay,d1 10.4 54.8 8.9 44.3 38.8 Progression Factor 0.37 1.22 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.8 0.1 Delay(s) 3.9 66.9 6.4 55.2 38.9 Level of Service A E A E D Approach Delay(s) 3.9 8.0 45.1 Approach LOS A A D r HCM Average Control Delay 16.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Grandview Dr. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 128 277 1272 59 36 472 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.87 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 3481 1611 1504 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3539 3481 1611 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 132 286 1311 61 37 487 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 2 0 163 163 Lane Group Flow(vph) 132 286 1370 0 103 95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 10.0 98.9 84.9 13.1 13.1 Effective Green,g(s) 10.0 98.9 84.9 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.82 0.71 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 286 2917 2463 176 164 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.08 c0.39 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.10 0.56 0.59 0.58 Uniform Delay,d1 52.4 2.0 8.5 50.9 50.8 Progression Factor 0.95 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.2 0.1 0.9 4.9 4.9 Delay(s) 51.1 0.4 9.4 55.8 55.7 Level of Service D A A E E Approach Delay(s) 16.4 9.4 55.7 Approach LOS B A E r HCM Average Control Delay 21.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 13 191 31 137 818 34 79 15 175 8 19 27 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.99 0.91 0.93 Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot) 3361 3397 1626 1675 Flt Permitted 0.91 0.87 0.89 0.95 Satd. Flow(perm) 3060 2959 1466 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 13 197 32 141 843 35 81 15 180 8 20 28 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 14 0 0 3 0 0 92 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 228 0 0 1016 0 0 184 0 0 35 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 25.9 25.9 11.2 11.2 Effective Green,g(s) 25.9 25.9 11.2 11.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1757 1699 364 397 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.34 c0.13 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.60 0.50 0.09 Uniform Delay,d1 4.4 6.2 14.6 13.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.1 Delay(s) 4.5 6.8 15.7 13.1 Level of Service A A B B Approach Delay(s) 4.5 6.8 15.7 13.1 Approach LOS A A B B r HCM Average Control Delay 8.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 45.1 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: I nt 4/5/2012 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 248 325 990 1461 209 180 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3223 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 3223 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 276 361 1100 1623 232 200 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 265 0 0 156 Lane Group Flow(vph) 276 361 2458 0 232 44 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s) 16.9 70.0 49.1 22.0 22.0 Effective Green,g(s) 16.9 70.0 49.1 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.70 0.49 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 299 2477 1582 389 348 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.10 c0.76 c0.13 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.92 0.15 1.54dr 0.60 0.13 Uniform Delay,d1 40.9 5.0 25.4 35.0 31.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 32.5 0.0 252.3 6.6 0.7 Delay(s) 73.4 5.0 277.7 41.6 32.0 Level of Service E A F D C Approach Delay(s) 34.7 277.7 37.2 Approach LOS C F D r HCM Average Control Delay 209.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.19 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group 2035_PM_with Proj+Eccles-Forbes blvd.&Gull Dr. 4/2/2012 Baseline Synchro 7- Report GC Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 0 9 68 597 0 0 Sign Control Yield Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 9 70 615 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 70 35 686 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 70 35 686 tC,single(s) 6.9 7.0 4.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 99 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 923 1027 897 Volume Total 9 47 229 410 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 9 0 205 410 cSH 1027 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.24 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay(s) 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay(s) 8.5 0.0 Approach LOS A r Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 752 107 85 2381 377 58 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3539 1540 1752 3505 3433 1559 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3539 1540 1752 3505 3433 1559 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 775 110 88 2455 389 60 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 45 0 0 0 34 Lane Group Flow(vph) 775 65 88 2455 389 26 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 92.3 92.3 29.6 119.5 21.6 21.6 Effective Green,g(s) 92.3 92.3 29.6 115.5 21.6 21.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.19 0.74 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2094 911 332 2595 475 216 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.05 c0.70 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.07 0.27 0.95 0.82 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 16.7 13.6 53.9 17.5 65.3 58.9 Progression Factor 0.82 0.83 1.46 0.67 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 10.0 0.1 Delay(s) 14.2 11.4 78.5 12.7 75.3 58.9 Level of Service B B E B E E Approach Delay(s) 13.8 15.0 73.2 Approach LOS B B E r HCM Average Control Delay 21.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 75 541 225 477 3015 24 1718 53 158 340 372 73 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 4832 1752 6338 3221 1621 1535 1611 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 4832 1752 6338 3221 1621 1535 1611 3902 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 77 558 232 492 3108 25 1771 55 163 351 384 75 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 77 790 0 492 3132 0 1222 604 95 351 384 75 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 6 4 6 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Perm custom custom custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 4 68 Actuated Green, G(s) 5.0 25.0 23.0 71.5 45.0 45.0 45.0 41.0 27.0 27.0 Effective Green,g(s) 5.0 25.0 23.0 71.5 45.0 45.0 45.0 41.0 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.46 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 57 774 258 2905 929 468 443 423 675 274 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.16 c0.28 c0.49 c0.38 0.37 0.10 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.22 v/c Ratio 1.35 1.02 1.91 1.08 1.32 1.29 0.21 0.83 0.57 0.27 Uniform Delay,d1 75.5 65.5 66.5 42.2 55.5 55.5 42.1 54.2 59.2 56.0 Progression Factor 0.63 0.64 0.94 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 228.7 35.0 409.5 36.0 149.6 146.1 0.1 12.7 0.7 0.2 Delay(s) 276.0 76.9 472.0 73.8 205.1 201.6 42.2 66.9 59.8 56.2 Level of Service F E F E F F D E E E Approach Delay(s) 94.6 127.9 190.7 Approach LOS F F F r HCM Average Control Delay 133.8 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.30 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 5 518 275 354 1418 1 815 2 122 2 4 36 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1521 1752 3504 3433 1565 1643 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 1521 1752 3504 2714 1565 1636 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 5 534 284 365 1462 1 840 2 126 2 4 37 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 5 534 125 365 1463 0 840 44 0 0 18 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 1.0 55.7 55.7 35.8 90.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 Effective Green,g(s) 1.0 55.7 55.7 35.8 90.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.58 0.34 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 11 1264 543 402 2033 913 527 551 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.15 c0.21 c0.42 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.31 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.42 0.23 0.91 0.72 0.92 0.08 0.03 Uniform Delay,d1 77.2 38.0 35.1 58.5 23.6 49.7 35.3 34.7 Progression Factor 0.81 0.67 0.62 1.01 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 10.2 1.0 1.0 16.7 1.5 14.0 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 72.7 26.3 22.8 75.8 22.4 63.7 35.4 34.7 Level of Service E C C E C E D C Approach Delay(s) 25.4 33.1 60.0 34.7 Approach LOS C C E C r HCM Average Control Delay 38.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 224 457 588 1658 1116 2221 486 128 384 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3400 3136 1382 3335 3438 2651 3367 1827 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3400 3136 1382 3335 3438 2651 3367 1827 2733 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 231 471 606 1709 1151 2290 501 132 396 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 46 224 0 0 162 0 0 55 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 231 698 109 1709 1151 2128 501 132 341 0 0 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 11 8 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 8 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 10.5 42.0 42.0 74.4 105.9 105.9 27.1 27.1 105.5 Effective Green,g(s) 10.5 42.0 42.0 74.4 105.9 105.9 27.1 27.1 105.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.48 0.68 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.68 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 229 844 372 1591 2334 1800 585 317 1848 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.22 0.51 0.33 c0.15 0.07 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.80 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.83 0.29 1.07 0.49 1.18 0.86 0.42 0.18 Uniform Delay,d1 72.8 53.6 45.2 40.8 12.1 25.0 62.6 57.4 9.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.08 2.20 0.86 0.74 0.65 0.62 0.58 1.52 Incremental Delay,d2 57.0 7.9 1.7 34.8 0.1 82.6 8.9 0.2 0.0 Delay(s) 130.1 65.7 101.4 69.8 9.0 98.9 47.7 33.3 14.2 Level of Service F E F E A F D C B Approach Delay(s) 86.2 69.1 33.0 0.0 Approach LOS F E C A r HCM Average Control Delay 67.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.11 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Oyster Point Blvd. & Veterans Blvd. (Base Option) II Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 136 875 75 2 2739 24 498 7 15 11 5 279 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.86 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3491 1752 3505 1512 1770 1672 1681 1278 2664 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3491 1752 3505 1512 1770 1672 1681 1278 2664 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 140 902 77 2 2824 25 513 7 15 11 5 288 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 12 0 0 69 126 Lane Group Flow(vph) 140 975 0 2 2824 22 513 10 0 10 29 70 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 13 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 7 2 11 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 7.0 98.5 1.0 92.5 92.5 34.0 34.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Effective Green,g(s) 7.0 98.5 1.0 92.5 92.5 34.0 34.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.63 0.01 0.59 0.59 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.04 0.04 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 154 2204 11 2078 897 386 364 65 49 102 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.28 0.00 c0.81 c0.29 0.01 0.01 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.44 0.18 1.36 0.02 1.33 0.03 0.15 0.59 0.69 Uniform Delay,d1 74.2 14.7 77.1 31.8 13.1 61.0 48.0 72.5 73.8 74.1 Progression Factor 0.64 2.19 0.89 0.83 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 33.9 0.4 1.2 162.9 0.0 165.0 0.0 0.4 11.0 14.2 Delay(s) 81.2 32.6 69.8 189.2 12.4 226.0 48.0 72.9 84.8 88.3 Level of Service F C E F B F D E F F Approach Delay(s) 38.7 187.6 218.6 86.7 Approach LOS D F F F r HCM Average Control Delay 150.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.30 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 156.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 121.5% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 92 101 541 103 750 3 502 277 135 7 433 1088 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 1863 2787 1770 5085 1537 3433 3346 1770 1863 2717 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 1863 2787 1770 5085 1537 3433 3346 1770 1863 2717 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 95 104 558 106 773 3 518 286 139 7 446 1122 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 261 0 0 2 0 50 0 0 0 194 Lane Group Flow(vph) 95 104 297 106 773 1 518 375 0 7 446 928 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 8 3 6 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 5 2 3 Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 27 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G(s) 7.0 11.8 44.8 18.1 22.9 22.9 29.0 64.4 9.7 45.1 45.1 Effective Green,g(s) 7.0 11.8 44.8 18.1 22.9 22.9 29.0 64.4 9.7 45.1 43.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.10 0.37 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.54 0.08 0.38 0.36 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 200 183 1040 267 970 293 830 1796 143 700 976 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.06 0.11 c0.06 c0.15 c0.15 0.11 0.00 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.34 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.57 0.29 0.40 0.80 0.00 0.62 0.21 0.05 0.64 0.95 Uniform Delay,d1 54.7 51.7 26.4 46.0 46.3 39.3 40.6 14.5 50.9 30.7 37.4 Progression Factor 0.92 0.69 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.72 1.19 1.08 1.13 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.1 0.6 9.6 Delay(s) 50.9 37.5 7.1 46.4 50.6 39.3 34.3 10.6 60.7 33.8 52.0 Level of Service D D A D D D C B E C D Approach Delay(s) 16.8 50.1 23.6 46.8 Approach LOS B D C D r HCM Average Control Delay 36.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. II t t Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 76 105 45 468 327 15 117 722 324 509 70 225 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1824 1543 1770 1844 1770 3539 1538 3399 2734 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1824 1543 1770 1844 1770 3539 1538 3399 2734 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 78 108 46 482 337 15 121 744 334 525 72 232 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 40 0 1 0 0 0 248 0 0 151 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 186 6 482 351 0 121 744 86 597 0 81 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 6 Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 3 2 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 16.6 16.6 32.5 51.9 12.0 30.9 30.9 26.0 26.0 Effective Green,g(s) 16.6 16.6 32.5 51.9 12.0 30.9 30.9 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.27 0.43 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 252 213 479 798 177 911 396 736 592 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.27 0.19 0.07 c0.21 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.03 1.01 0.44 0.68 0.82 0.22 0.81 0.14 Uniform Delay,d1 49.6 44.7 43.8 23.9 52.2 41.9 35.0 44.7 37.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.53 1.15 0.93 1.40 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 9.3 0.0 38.8 1.4 7.7 7.3 1.1 6.4 0.0 Delay(s) 58.9 44.8 71.9 14.2 67.5 46.5 50.3 51.1 38.0 Level of Service E D E B E D D D D Approach Delay(s) 56.1 47.5 49.7 47.4 Approach LOS E D D D r HCM Average Control Delay 49.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group SSF East of 101 Traffic Study 5:00 pm 3/27/2012 2035+Project+Eccles P.M. Peak GC Appendix B Incorporation of 475 Eccles Avenue into 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) Buildout Sam Bautista, PE ATTICIIMS July 5, 2012 Page B-1 An application for re-development of 475 Eccles Avenue was received in 2011. The East of 101 model does not include this proposed project. Therefore, the traffic generated by this potential future project was added to the East of 101 intersection turning volumes. The proposed land use for 475 Eccles is shown in Table 131 (475 Eccles Avenue), and the trip generation for the project is shown in Table B2 (Project Trip Generation [Net Increase in Vehicle Trips]-475 Eccles Avenue). The project will result in a net increase of 35 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 30 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour. . - Land Use Square Feet Office 48,000 Warehouse 72,000 Existing Assembly/Storage 24,000 Miscellaneous 8,145 Subtotal 152,145 Research &Development 157,372 Proposed Office 104,915 Subtotal 262,287 Net Change 110,142 SOURCE: City of South San Francisco(2011);Atkins(2012). 7\\ \ / A G % G G E % Cl)HOMMUMN ? �d a ® © \ m . ƒ C@L % m r NT m § o w � � CR A % / aLL 2 2 G G R G / R / ± » / \ © q 2 q a G b R G 2 ? % k ' k & :Rfk a S m � P_: o 0 . � 22 2 2 2 p F 7 � ƒ � � @ . / § � ■ 2 y ƒ y y y 2 A c A A ) _ \ Z Lo C-4 Lo t G I k � � / k \ L ? L � R R \ 0, U) m g \ 3 g k 2 6 fir \ S k S k \ 2 w m h / / � h / Appendix C East of 101 Planned Improvements 6 E E 1 z 1 v v M W �O N 'o LL r, w b " Ev b ���.� � a � NOPTb�,eoRO o 0 W o� n o. O � 3nv a�3id3uln O ro U N c,"1o"r gbOy g m`O �6 g � unaoeavu w 6 o ti rc 6 0 1 O _ 3�b'non.nc laodaivs WOdblb ��cE PV E. Q� 0 � O� N30N1� 3Ab 031bIN NbS S SO y�g 3Ab3�dblry K Q Q m 4 (G6Z,'99�o"216(122 �t 3 9 I 70(17 (54)9O ti 21)85) O O 0 m 2� 2 ) S f Q m 158) w b �o m 19953 27611718) 1 0 Vi f u � �� ��m (0�B9)L�I y f I FI-♦l((O0z4Zz))6LZBL —" )90 (gzbl a L �m C wa 166�340) g O c((u/]L)roe<����1�((S♦IBbI 7 )O6ff LZ `Q(bZ£)bOL—'A mm Na— C — o /moo ^° — a+ IIIII F(9lZ)S4l / �C+y�(6$L) `6Z O 4 u (ROP) (caz)sew nN 7 — — 0 w a >K O � c /��a^�ro°�w ti bgab/06 f<<b Y m %2�618L9�1�r r•1�`4� `wQ u? z v °x/°22°� `v v v o o Q o — ", 0- 4 ry�\ 2 0 w a It U i'gOS/ w a i1A a ff S f 0 o 1 .o f saes _4 > nee'i m (BSJ f c " (60z)zse'�1 � � (es)sse (zteJ ae��l U ¢' a "°m"➢ c c c O *� h3��l Wg y�e}euo�)IH9HSA001.